Runaway global warming, what is the tipping point supposed to be?

[neutrino_cannon]

Could anyone fill me in on the model and explanation of runaway global warming? What are the positive feedback cycles that would cause increased temperature? Ice cap loss screwing with albedo, methane release from clathrate deposits, what else? How much difference would negative feedback factors like increased algal activity have? How hard a shove does the system need to go spiralling hard one way or another?


Simply, it occurs to me that at various points in the planet's history conditions have been substantially warmer. How big a metastable temperature range is there before Earth becomes Venus?

[DogB]

Oh boy, big question.

Firstly you can pretty much forget a Venus type situation. Earth is too far from the sun and our atmosphere is too thin. Other than that, IFAIK your question has no reliable answer.

Sorry I wasn’t more help but I really just wanted to give your thread a bump because I think it’s a good question and I’m interested in what answers you get.

[CapelDodger]

Could anyone fill me in on the model and explanation of runaway global warming? What are the positive feedback cycles that would cause increased temperature? Ice cap loss screwing with albedo, methane release from clathrate deposits, what else? How much difference would negative feedback factors like increased algal activity have? How hard a shove does the system need to go spiralling hard one way or another?


Simply, it occurs to me that at various points in the planet's history conditions have been substantially warmer. How big a metastable temperature range is there before Earth becomes Venus?

The planet won't become like Venus. The climate won't become anything that it hasn't already been in the past. Small comfort, perhaps, but there it is.

We won't know a tipping point for certain until it's happened. I think we've reached one already, but that's just my opinion, based primarily on what's been happening in the Arctic. Melting permafrost means it's game over, even if something was done to stop anthropogenic emissions (and nothing will be). Once the permafrost has gone that positive feedback will be over but there's a way to go before that happens. Arctic sea-ice will be gone much sooner, which will remove that positive feedback. The Greenland and Antarctic icecaps will take longer, but that's a minor positive feedback. Even deep-sea clathrates are finite.

Algae aren't only limited by temperature and CO2 they're also limited by nutrients, so I don't hold out much hope there. In fact I don't see any significant negative feedbacks on the horizon.

[CapelDodger]

Oh boy, big question.

Firstly you can pretty much forget a Venus type situation. Earth is too far from the sun and our atmosphere is too thin. Other than that, IFAIK your question has no reliable answer.

We'll know more after the event :).

[Hindmost]

The tipping point will be when CapelDodger and Mhaze agree on anything:p

I think the tipping point on global warming has already occured...however, the "runaway" thing is the probably subject to interpretation. I don't think the methods we have to analyze global warming can predict how fast and how many issues will occur as we warm up. Of course we will find out.

glenn

[CapelDodger]

The tipping point will be when CapelDodger and Mhaze agree on anything:p

And we'll go skatin' with Satan :).

[mhaze]

Could anyone fill me in on the model and explanation of runaway global warming? What are the positive feedback cycles that would cause increased temperature? Ice cap loss screwing with albedo, methane release from clathrate deposits, what else? How much difference would negative feedback factors like increased algal activity have? How hard a shove does the system need to go spiralling hard one way or another?


Simply, it occurs to me that at various points in the planet's history conditions have been substantially warmer. How big a metastable temperature range is there before Earth becomes Venus?Yes, indeedy. The Y2k of the planet. Could CO2 do it in any concentration, given the log function response it has?

Venus, no similarity at all.

[lomiller]

Simply, it occurs to me that at various points in the planet's history conditions have been substantially warmer. How big a metastable temperature range is there before Earth becomes Venus?


Basically the oceans would need to boil away. After that temperature would still need to climb until carbonate rock broke down into CO2. This would release comparable amounts of CO2 to what we see on Venus and create similar conditions.

I think I’ve seen a number like a 50% increase in solar intensity would be required. There is simply no realistic scenario where it could occur. What is more threatening is a move to a different equilibrium then our economies and civilizations are built to withstand. A more realistic end of the world global catastrophe could come from ocean acidification killing off a good part of the oxygen producing bacteria in the oceans, and even that is unlikely.

[a_unique_person]

Could anyone fill me in on the model and explanation of runaway global warming? What are the positive feedback cycles that would cause increased temperature? Ice cap loss screwing with albedo, methane release from clathrate deposits, what else? How much difference would negative feedback factors like increased algal activity have? How hard a shove does the system need to go spiralling hard one way or another?


Simply, it occurs to me that at various points in the planet's history conditions have been substantially warmer. How big a metastable temperature range is there before Earth becomes Venus?

There is a difference between tipping point and runaway. You can have tipping point that takes us beyond the simple, first order, estimates of climate sensitivity. That doesn't mean runaway, it is the whole debate. Will get an 8C rise, or a 1C rise.

Tipping points would be the melting of the Arctic ice cap. Such an event could change the albedo of the earth, and lead to an end to much of the permanent ice in the area, for example. Another would be the melting of large amounts of permafrost, releasing large amounts of methane, that further contribute to AGW.

[spacediver]

can you explain more clearly what the difference between tipping point and runaway is?

I couldn't understand the difference based on your post, but I'm curious to know what it is!

[lomiller]

can you explain more clearly what the difference between tipping point and runaway is?

I couldn't understand the difference based on your post, but I'm curious to know what it is!


A tipping point is basically non-linearity rearing it’s head. A runanway condition is one possible consequence of that, but only one of several possibilities.

As an example of a tipping point, the long term climate sensitivity is probably about 3 deg C per doubling of CO2 but this is really just an approximation of a much more complex situation. There are vast stores of frozen methal hydrate underneath the artic ocean. They stay in a frozen state and even accumulate as long as the ocean stays below a certain temperature.

If your starting point is 4 deg below that threshold temperature, and you double CO2 levels you raise the temperature by 3 deg these deposits remain frozen and you get 3 deg of warming. If, however you start 1 degree below this threshold temperature these deposits turn to a very strong greenhouse gas that causes even more warming.

Because these deposits are finite, however, you don’t have a true runaway condition. There is enough greenhouse gases in the to raise the global temperate another 3 degrees or so if you are close to the tipping point climate sensitivity may be 9 deg for a doubling of CO2 (because you only need 1 deg before the deposits melt) but after a few extra degrees of warming this number drops back down to 3.

In a runaway condition you would never drop back, so basically what you had was a tipping point that did no lead to a runaway condition.

[bobdroege7]

can you explain more clearly what the difference between tipping point and runaway is?

I couldn't understand the difference based on your post, but I'm curious to know what it is!

They are essentially the same and differ only in magnitude.

A small step change in temperature or a large one.

After all, the runaway on Venus stopped.

[spacediver]

thanks lomiller.

So in the language of dynamical systems, I guess a runaway condition would be an attractor.

[lomiller]

thanks lomiller.

So in the language of dynamical systems, I guess a runaway condition would be an attractor.

That doesn’t really seem to fit. I’m not exactly an expert on dynamical systems theory (to say the least) but I view it like this: Lets say you have a multistable dynamical system. A tipping point would be the point at which you jump from one attractor to another, a runaway occurs when the attractor you tip over to is at infinity.

A true runaway is clearly not possible in a finite system , but in this case we are discussing a “Venus style runaway” in which the attractor is far beyond our norm but not truly infinite.

[a_unique_person]

can you explain more clearly what the difference between tipping point and runaway is?

I couldn't understand the difference based on your post, but I'm curious to know what it is!

My bad :o. There are better informed people here than me.

[mhaze]

....Simply, it occurs to me that at various points in the planet's history conditions have been substantially warmer. How big a metastable temperature range is there before Earth becomes Venus?

I note that although you have provoked some of the standard talking points from our resident Warmer community, none has directly answered your question (bolded by me). Let's leave out the exaggeration (Venus) which some of them jumped on and misdirected.

Let's ask the question once more:

How big a metastable temperature range is there before Earth moves to the alternate stable point that exists past the (tipping points, runaway, blah blah blah).

Either degrees C, K, F, or R may be used in the answer.

[CapelDodger]

How big a metastable temperature range is there before Earth moves to the alternate stable point that exists past the (tipping points, runaway, blah blah blah).

Either degrees C, K, F, or R may be used in the answer.

Nobody knows.

We know the kind of event that will constitute a tipping-point. That would include the self-reinforcing melting of permafrost. It may include the permanent loss of summer Arctic sea-ice.

Permafrost is already melting, and at an increasing rate, so that tipping-point has probably already been reached.

[mhaze]

Sorry, that's a bit too vague and speculative to rate as an explanation of the subject.

[CapelDodger]

Sorry, that's a bit too vague and speculative to rate as an explanation of the subject.

There's nothing vague about the words "melting" and "permafrost", nor is there anything speculative about the observed fact that permafrost is melting.

[BenBurch]

There's nothing vague about the words "melting" and "permafrost", nor is there anything speculative about the observed fact that permafrost is melting.

For example; http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081210133814.htm

Much more methane gas is being emitted into the atmosphere from the tundra in northeast Greenland than previous studies have shown. New figures reveal that large amounts of greenhouse gases are being emitted into the atmosphere, not just during the warm summer months, but also during the colder autumn months.

[Corsair 115]

Simply, it occurs to me that at various points in the planet's history conditions have been substantially warmer.


But, of course, while it may have been substantially warmer in the past, there were also, it seems to me, some important differences between that past and our present that ought to be factored in. These would be such things as continental position and shape (which would affect ocean currents and weather patterns), and the fact that huge amounts of the Earth's surface have been deforested to make way for human settlements and farmlands.

Due to these differences I wonder how much applicability there is in saying because the Earth millions of years ago was substantially warmer than it is now we don't really need to worry about it.

[CapelDodger]

For example; http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081210133814.htm

Indeed, and only one example amongst many.

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by mhaze http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4268345#post4268345)
How big a metastable temperature range is there before Earth moves to the alternate stable point that exists past the (tipping points, runaway, blah blah blah).
Either degrees C, K, F, or R may be used in the answer.

Nobody knows.

We know the kind of event that will constitute a tipping-point. That would include the self-reinforcing melting of permafrost. It may include the permanent loss of summer Arctic sea-ice.

Permafrost is already melting, and at an increasing rate, so that tipping-point has probably already been reached.

Here is a bit of help for you -

There is about 80C difference between pole and equator, a distance of some 8000 miles. So very roughly, climate moves 100 miles per 1C change.

How big a metastable temperature range is there before Earth moves to the alternate stable point that exists past the (tipping points, runaway, blah blah blah). Either degrees C, K, F, or R may be used in the answer.

[Zytheran]

Based on paleoclimate records it would appear the maximum temperature increase, regardless of continent placement and solar output is about +10C compared to now. The temperature has been up and down lots but there seems to be level above which it doesn't go. I'd guess this limit is based on distance from the sun and solar output, which is slowly increasing.
I assume that this temperature limit is due to increasing humidity leading to greater cloud production which forms the limit as the albedo drops. At this point of stability we have ended up with a very tropical forested planet. And I'd say it rained like nothing we've ever seen based on calculated levels of erosion and depth of silts in various places around the world.
Someone must have run a climate model to reproduce the paleo climate and work out why it topped out?

[GreyICE]

Could anyone fill me in on the model and explanation of runaway global warming? What are the positive feedback cycles that would cause increased temperature? Ice cap loss screwing with albedo, methane release from clathrate deposits, what else? How much difference would negative feedback factors like increased algal activity have? How hard a shove does the system need to go spiralling hard one way or another?


Simply, it occurs to me that at various points in the planet's history conditions have been substantially warmer. How big a metastable temperature range is there before Earth becomes Venus?
Earth cannot become Venus. Impossible.

Global Warming cannot 'run away.' At a certain level CO2 absorption bands become saturated, that'll limit the upper temperature.

There isn't a tipping point.

[mhaze]

Based on paleoclimate records it would appear the maximum temperature increase, regardless of continent placement and solar output is about +10C compared to now. The temperature has been up and down lots but there seems to be level above which it doesn't go. I'd guess this limit is based on distance from the sun and solar output, which is slowly increasing.
I assume that this temperature limit is due to increasing humidity leading to greater cloud production which forms the limit as the albedo drops. At this point of stability we have ended up with a very tropical forested planet. And I'd say it rained like nothing we've ever seen based on calculated levels of erosion and depth of silts in various places around the world.
Someone must have run a climate model to reproduce the paleo climate and work out why it topped out?


Good point.

Hotter air has more moisture, which means more "low level rain and snow clouds". Albedo changes occur from both more snow, and increased low level clouds. (negative feedback). Increased IR retention occurs from higher water vapor in the atmosphere (positive feedback).

You have suggested an upper temperature limit irregardless of whether any "runaway or tipping point" phenomena may have or could exist. But the very factors which create this absolute limit to temperature on a water planet should also affect whether "runaway or tipping points" can occur at all. The planet is dominated by negative feedback.

Ill defined but often cited Alarmist concerns about "runaway/tipping points" seem based on a concern that short term positive feedback exists from the current temperature trend. There's a lot of vagueness in whether Alarmists acknowledge longer term fundamental negative feedbacks. They have often quoted temperature increases in excess of 10C as an example.

We are using for the purposes of this discussion the convenient phrase "metastable". Note there is no certainty that the Earth's climate is "metastable" with the exception of the ice age cycles.

[GreyICE]

Good point.

Hotter air has more moisture, which means more "low level rain and snow clouds". Albedo changes occur from both more snow, and increased low level clouds. (negative feedback). Increased IR retention occurs from higher water vapor in the atmosphere (positive feedback).

You have suggested an upper temperature limit irregardless of whether any "runaway or tipping point" phenomena may have or could exist. But the very factors which create this absolute limit to temperature on a water planet should also affect whether "runaway or tipping points" can occur at all. The planet is dominated by negative feedback. Runaway can't happen period, when an upper limit exists on the forcing effect. Positive and negative forcing doesn't matter. You can design an accelerator pedal that increases your car's speed faster as more force is applied, but that doesn't make your car capable of Mach 10, it just means it tends to accelerate more than you think it will.

Of course this might require simple understanding to understand.



Ill defined but often cited Alarmist concerns about "runaway/tipping points" seem based on a concern that short term positive feedback exists from the current temperature trend. There's a lot of vagueness in whether Alarmists acknowledge longer term fundamental negative feedbacks. They have often quoted temperature increases in excess of 10C as an example.

We are using for the purposes of this discussion the convenient phrase "metastable". Note there is no certainty that the Earth's climate is "metastable" with the exception of the ice age cycles.
Ah, good old lie about the feedbacks and create uncertainty.

The 'vagueness' about the feedbacks is in fact well defined. Since you've quoted the relevant sections of the IPCC report, I suppose that understanding simply does not flow from being given access to the information.

[lomiller]

Earth cannot become Venus. Impossible.

Global Warming cannot 'run away.' At a certain level CO2 absorption bands become saturated, that'll limit the upper temperature.

There isn't a tipping point.

Not quite. No other source of CO2 approaches what is stored in carbonate rock, and the Earth could become like Venus if it got hot enough for this stuff to break down. That said, this requires a surface temperature some 100+ degrees warmer then current, and there is no known mechanism for that to occur. Even if all the other sources of CO2 were to be released it wouldn’t create enough warming for this to happen.

[mhaze]

Ah, good old lie about the feedbacks and create uncertainty. ..... Since you've quoted the relevant sections of the IPCC report, I suppose that understanding simply does not flow from being given access to the information.

The sections of IPCC which affirm the uncertainty in solar and cloud effects
must be all good old lies ...

Otherwise, you deny the IPCC...

A Denier?:clap:

[lomiller]

The sections of IPCC which affirm the uncertainty in solar and cloud effects
must be all good old lies ...

Otherwise, you deny the IPCC...

A Denier?:clap:


It’s still highly unlikely that the uncertainty in cloud formation would work to prevent temperatures higher then present day, otherwise the earth would never have experienced temperatures higher then present day. The uncertainty, however, cuts both ways and could mean more warming then currently predicted, and AFIK there is nothing other then wishful thinking to speak against this.

[spacediver]

here's a very cool animation that weighs in on the topic.

http://wakeupfreakout.org/film/tipping.html

[GreyICE]

Not quite. No other source of CO2 approaches what is stored in carbonate rock, and the Earth could become like Venus if it got hot enough for this stuff to break down. That said, this requires a surface temperature some 100+ degrees warmer then current, and there is no known mechanism for that to occur. Even if all the other sources of CO2 were to be released it wouldn’t create enough warming for this to happen. No, because there's a maximum amount of heat that can be absorbed in the CO2 absorption bands, period, the end. The earth only emits a certain amount of light on those frequencies, and CO2 does NOT absorb outside those bands.

Once those bands are saturated, that is that. There's no more heat being emitted on those bands.

Venus has such a mess of an atmosphere that its damn near saturated on EVERY band. That's quite different.


The sections of IPCC which affirm the uncertainty in solar and cloud effects
must be all good old lies ...

Otherwise, you deny the IPCC...

A Denier?:clap:
Hey, MHaze, one day you shall quote me in context. I look forward to the day. At this point your approach appears to be to trim my post until it resembles whatever strawman you want to make and then just run with that strawman.

Frankly, I'm bored of that. You trimmed a three paragraph reply into one amazingly out of context sentence in the other thread, and you're not doing much better here.

Did you ever consider your audience on this site is people who have a brain? It's not your typical playschool pals on the denial blogs.

[mhaze]

It’s still highly unlikely that the uncertainty in cloud formation would work to prevent temperatures higher then present day, otherwise the earth would never have experienced temperatures higher then present day. The uncertainty, however, cuts both ways and could mean more warming then currently predicted, and AFIK there is nothing other then wishful thinking to speak against this.

Double talk. Zytheran offered +10C increase as the maximum temperature increase based on physical factors.
How big a metastable temperature range is there before Earth moves to the alternate stable point that exists past the (tipping points, runaway, blah blah blah). Either degrees C, K, F, or R may be used in the answer.
If this question cannot be answered...the "metastable climate" phrasing....then, like the question of "what is the equilibrium climate temperature"....the question is not phrased correctly and should be rephrased in accordance with the phenomena so that an answer is possible.

[lomiller]

No, because there's a maximum amount of heat that can be absorbed in the CO2 absorption bands, period, the end.

I’m not sure it’s truly possible to saturate absorption because temperature will climb until equilibrium is obtained. Regardless even on Venus saturation is not reached.


The earth only emits a certain amount of light on those frequencies, and CO2 does NOT absorb outside those bands.

Once those bands are saturated, that is that. There's no more heat being

CO2 absorption bands spread with higher atmospheric pressure.



Venus has such a mess of an atmosphere that its damn near saturated on EVERY band. That's quite different.

Venus’s atmosphere is 98% CO2. It’s so warm precisely because of that thick CO2 atmosphere. There is enough carbonate rock to create a similar atmosphere on earth if it were to be released. Remember Venus acutely has less slightly solar energy make it’s way into the atmosphere then the earth does because of it’s much higher albedo.

[mhaze]

....Hey, MHaze, one day you shall quote me in context. I look forward to the day. At this point your approach appears to be to trim my post until it resembles whatever strawman you want to make and then just run with that strawman.

Frankly, I'm bored of that. You trimmed a three paragraph reply into one amazingly out of context sentence in the other thread, and you're not doing much better here.....

Ah, good old lie about the feedbacks and create uncertainty.

The 'vagueness' about the feedbacks is in fact well defined. Since you've quoted the relevant sections of the IPCC report, I suppose that understanding simply does not flow from being given access to the information.

Gee, I don't know. IPCC says low understanding of clouds and solar, I just agree with them on that.

You translate that into "good old lies about feedbacks and creating uncertainty".

FACT: Warmers are much more extreme in their viewpoints than the IPCC documents.

[GreyICE]

Ah, good old lie about the feedbacks and create uncertainty.

The 'vagueness' about the feedbacks is in fact well defined. Since you've quoted the relevant sections of the IPCC report, I suppose that understanding simply does not flow from being given access to the information.

Gee, I don't know. IPCC says low understanding of clouds and solar, I just agree with them on that.

You translate that into "good old lies about feedbacks and creating uncertainty".

FACT: Warmers are much more extreme in their viewpoints than the IPCC documents.

FACT: Any time Mhaze writes the word FACT anything that follows is probably nothing of the sort.

Of course since MHaze has made the claim, he can conveniently provide proof that all "warmers" as he puts it, are more extreme than the IPCC (Of course since the IPCC is made up of "Warmers" one supposes that they must be more extreme then themselves, which will render his claim unlikely. He could, of course, recursively define warmer as anyone more extreme than the IPCC, which would prove his point in typical Mhaze fashion).

FACT: The uncertainties are well defined. It's called error bars, he needs to look them up.

[mhaze]

FACT: Any time Mhaze writes the word FACT anything that follows is probably nothing of the sort.

Of course since MHaze has made the claim, he can conveniently provide proof that all "warmers" as he puts it, are more extreme than the IPCC (Of course since the IPCC is made up of "Warmers" one supposes that they must be more extreme then themselves, which will render his claim unlikely. He could, of course, recursively define warmer as anyone more extreme than the IPCC, which would prove his point in typical Mhaze fashion).

FACT: The uncertainties are well defined. It's called error bars, he needs to look them up.

Well, I'll bite (although on occasion one does wonder if you take this too seriously - Warmers as a rule are way too serious, because of their urgent crusade to save the world before it goes past the tipping point or runaway or whatever the crisis is supposed to be).

How do you put error bars on the IPCC phrase "low understanding"?

[GMB]

There is no tipping point. This is a baseless leftist lie. The whole global warming movement is transparently fraudulent. That there are a bunch of people here who have fallen for this jive, without any evidence whatsoever, is a tip-off that the skeptical movement has lost its way.

[CapelDodger]

Double talk. Zytheran offered +10C increase as the maximum temperature increase based on physical factors.
How big a metastable temperature range is there before Earth moves to the alternate stable point that exists past the (tipping points, runaway, blah blah blah). Either degrees C, K, F, or R may be used in the answer.


"Temperature" of what, exactly?

If this question cannot be answered...the "metastable climate" phrasing....then, like the question of "what is the equilibrium climate temperature"....the question is not phrased correctly and should be rephrased in accordance with the phenomena so that an answer is possible.

Temperature is not important in itself; impacts are what matters. It's not important what local temperature leads to permafrost-melt, what matters is the melt. What we can say, from observation, is that Arctic temperatures are now sufficient to melt permafrost which has been accumulating for thousands of years. That represents a tipping-point, because it releases CO2 and CH4 in its own right.

Where will it stop? Absent a strong cooling forcing it will stop when the permafrost has released all the CO2 and CH4 that it's going to. Exactly how much that will be nobody knows; exactly what impact it will have on global temperatures is not known. What we do know is that the impact will be substantial (just from the basic science). There's one heck of a lot of organic material in the permafrost, after all. That we do know.

[CapelDodger]

There is no tipping point. This is a baseless leftist lie. The whole global warming movement is transparently fraudulent. That there are a bunch of people here who have fallen for this jive, without any evidence whatsoever, is a tip-off that the skeptical movement has lost its way.

There's a Conspiracy Forum at http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=91 . You might feel more at home there.

[mhaze]

There is no tipping point. This is a baseless leftist lie. The whole global warming movement is transparently fraudulent. That there are a bunch of people here who have fallen for this jive, without any evidence whatsoever, is a tip-off that the skeptical movement has lost its way.

You mean I can't pry and answer out of them in physical units like degrees Kelvin as to when this Big Event happens?

Shucks. At least we knew when Y2k was gonna happen. (Well, sort of).

[CapelDodger]

It’s still highly unlikely that the uncertainty in cloud formation would work to prevent temperatures higher then present day, otherwise the earth would never have experienced temperatures higher then present day. The uncertainty, however, cuts both ways and could mean more warming then currently predicted, and AFIK there is nothing other then wishful thinking to speak against this.

I have sought and only find wishful thinking these days. "There's some uncertainty about clouds therefore they might do anything, starting soon, oh yes, just you wait."

The best effort was Lindzen's Iris, which did not survive the test of credibility. Not only did it depend on made-up parameters, it would cancel any interglacial before it got going. Death by observation.

Clouds work both ways - cooling and warming - so the chance that the balance will be enough to cancel AGW is laughable. Even were the entire globe swathed in low-level cloud permanently it wouldn't be enough.

The hope won't die, though. Like that cheque from the Nigerian businessman, it might just be held-up in the post :).

[mhaze]

"Temperature" of what, exactly?

Temperature is not important in itself; impacts are what matters. It's not important what local temperature leads to permafrost-melt, what matters is the melt. What we can say, from observation, is that Arctic temperatures are now sufficient to melt permafrost which has been accumulating for thousands of years. That represents a tipping-point, because it releases CO2 and CH4 in its own right.

Where will it stop? Absent a strong cooling forcing it will stop when the permafrost has released all the CO2 and CH4 that it's going to. Exactly how much that will be nobody knows; exactly what impact it will have on global temperatures is not known. What we do know is that the impact will be substantial (just from the basic science). There's one heck of a lot of organic material in the permafrost, after all. That we do know.

Really? So you can't say, there are



N number of tons of stinking goo that used to be permafrost at latitude 71
which at current temperatures will release X1 MegaBiggie Tons of BadStuff
which in turn will affect global climate by Y1 degrees
causing a progressive northern expansion of the Permafrost Melt Zone by Z1 miles to latitude 71+++
bringing another X2 tons BadStuff into play
GOTO 1


Recursive Doom?

I want to know all about this Doom. Can't we calulateify it? Like, get some of those Units, you know, applied. We gots Units for temperature, length, weight. Lots of them. Units for money. Like, this dude over here just stole $50B of peoples' money. Units tell us that's 33 tandem dump trucks of $100 bills.

Units are Good Things. Even though runaways and tipping points are always trying to run away from precise definition, let's pin them down like squirmy frogs on the table and dissect them.

[CapelDodger]

You mean I can't pry and answer out of them in physical units like degrees Kelvin as to when this Big Event happens?

Shucks. At least we knew when Y2k was gonna happen. (Well, sort of).

What Big Event do you mean? You're being terribly vague. Please be more specific : what do you mean by "temperature" (temperature of what, that is) and what does "Big Event" signify?

[CapelDodger]

Really? So you can't say, there are N number of tons of stinking goo that used to be permafrost at latitude 71, which at current temperatures will release X1 MegaMiggie Tons of BadStuff, which in turn will affect global climate by Y1 degrees, causing a progressive northern expansion of the Permafrost Melt Zone by Z1 miles, which brings another X2 tons into play, which recursively causes Doom?

I want to know all about this Doom. Can't we just calulateify it out?

There's billions of tons of permafrost, much of which is organic. When the permafrost melts the organic material breaks down to produce billions of tons of CO2 and CH4 (as has been observed by hardy scientists who do that sort of thing). These are greenhouse gases and will cause more warming. This is what makes the beginning of permafrost-melt a tipping-point. Palaeoclimate bears this out.

Where will it end and when? No-one can say. All we can do is watch and learn. We'll know much more after the event. Scientists may even be able to calculate how much permafrost there was (or at least how much organic material was in it) once it's all gone just by its CO2 signature.

[CapelDodger]

Units are Good Things. Even though runaways and tipping points are always trying to run away from precise definition ...

"Melting" and "Permafrost" are precisely defined, as is "melting permafrost is a tipping-point".

What "unit" of tipping-point are you using? Also : what do you mean by "temperature" and "Big Event"? Your public wants to know.

[TrueSceptic]

There is no tipping point. This is a baseless leftist lie. The whole global warming movement is transparently fraudulent. That there are a bunch of people here who have fallen for this jive, without any evidence whatsoever, is a tip-off that the skeptical movement has lost its way.
So, you are here too?

It's good that you are such a transparent wingnut (or a very clumsy satirist).

[lomiller]

There is no tipping point. This is a baseless leftist lie. The whole global warming movement is transparently fraudulent. That there are a bunch of people here who have fallen for this jive, without any evidence whatsoever, is a tip-off that the skeptical movement has lost its way.

Sounds a lot like…

"There is no evolution. This is a baseless leftist lie. The whole Darwinist movement is transparently fraudulent. That there are a bunch of people here who have fallen for this jive, without any evidence whatsoever, is a tip-off that the skeptical movement has lost its way."

[mhaze]

There's billions of tons of permafrost, much of which is organic. When the permafrost melts the organic material breaks down to produce billions of tons of CO2 and CH4 (as has been observed by hardy scientists who do that sort of thing). These are greenhouse gases and will cause more warming. This is what makes the beginning of permafrost-melt a tipping-point. Palaeoclimate bears this out.

Where will it end and when? No-one can say. All we can do is watch and learn. We'll know much more after the event. Scientists may even be able to calculate how much permafrost there was (or at least how much organic material was in it) once it's all gone just by its CO2 signature.

Ok, so you can't quantify the problem either in severity, timeliness, extent of rapid or slow onset, existence (or not) of self perpetuating feedback mechanisms, tons of methane per degree latitude of melt....

I've only asked for a way to understand "the problem" from a simple mathematical or engineering perspective. Sorry, but if that can't be produced, my skepticism goes into full on mode.

The Arctic was much warmer 6000-7000 years ago (http://www.ngu.no/en-gb/Aktuelt/2008/Less-ice-in-the-Arctic-Ocean-6000-7000-years-ago/), no "tipping point or runaway" seemed to occur. Why should anyone bother to listen to this sort of Alarmist stuff? There are a lot of serious, real world problems that require attention...

[GMB]

You mean I can't pry and answer out of them in physical units like degrees Kelvin as to when this Big Event happens?

Shucks. At least we knew when Y2k was gonna happen. (Well, sort of).

You won't be able to get it out of them with a blow torch. Because its a transparent racket.

[GMB]

Sounds a lot like…

"There is no evolution. This is a baseless leftist lie. The whole Darwinist movement is transparently fraudulent. That there are a bunch of people here who have fallen for this jive, without any evidence whatsoever, is a tip-off that the skeptical movement has lost its way."

No it doesn't sound the least bit like that. Don't be an idiot mate. The evidence for evolution isn't direct but it is convergent and coming from all different angles.

But the evidence backing up this global warming racket is entirely missing. Not indirect. Not convergent. Entirely absent.

[GMB]

So, you are here too?

It's good that you are such a transparent wingnut (or a very clumsy satirist).

See you are just a compulsive liar. You have got nothing. You have no evidence. You will refuse point blank to come up with any evidence.

And this is why this global warming racket is by far the most transparent of frauds. Because its an evidence-free-zone and any true skeptic worth his salt is in a position to ask for the evidence and it is NEVER forthcoming.

This is the most offensive of all baseless rackets since it is the one which intends up front to impose the most scandalous economic costs on everyone.

[GMB]

There's billions of tons of permafrost, much of which is organic. When the permafrost melts the organic material breaks down to produce billions of tons of CO2 and CH4 (as has been observed by hardy scientists who do that sort of thing). These are greenhouse gases and will cause more warming.

No they won't. Thats nonsense. Where is your evidence for this wrong conclusion?

[CapelDodger]

Ok, so you can't quantify the problem either in severity, timeliness, extent of rapid or slow onset, existence (or not) of self perpetuating feedback mechanisms, tons of methane per degree latitude of melt....

I don't share your obsession with precise quantification. Things do happen, even before the figures are in.

The onset of permafrost-melt is already behind us; it came on relatively rapidly, over the last eight or ten years with a definite acceleration in the last few years. It is a self-reinforcing mechanism, obviously. Thus the tipping-point.

I've only asked for a way to understand "the problem" from a simple mathematical or engineering perspective. Sorry, but if that can't be produced, my skepticism goes into full on mode.

You're simply avoiding the physical fact of melting permafrost and its direct implications. Refusing to approach the subject without precise numbers for everything is futile.

The Arctic was much warmer 6000-7000 years ago (http://www.ngu.no/en-gb/Aktuelt/2008/Less-ice-in-the-Arctic-Ocean-6000-7000-years-ago/), no "tipping point or runaway" seemed to occur. Why should anyone bother to listen to this sort of Alarmist stuff? There are a lot of serious, real world problems that require attention...

The Arctic wasn't much warmer 6-7000 years ago otherwise the permafrost would have melted then - and it didn't. Cores have been taken from permafrost older than that and there is no sign of melting. Current melting has already produced a signature that will be easily recognisable in 6-7000 years. Centuries of accumulation has melted away in just a decade.

Sea-ice isn't the only proxy available.

(By the way, what is it I've said that's alarmed you?)

[CapelDodger]

No they won't. Thats nonsense. Where is your evidence for this wrong conclusion?

See http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html.

Where's the evidence for your conclusion?

[GMB]

See http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html.

Where's the evidence for your conclusion?

No you are not getting away with that. You made a claim. Its a nonsense claim but you made it.

Where is your evidence for it?

Don't be filibustering me. Now this other thing. The period from 8000-5000 years ago was the holocene optimum. Meaning the warmest period since before the last glacial period. So the arctic was in fact a great deal warmer than it is now.

As was the world more generally.

[CapelDodger]

No you are not getting away with that. You made a claim. Its a nonsense claim but you made it.

My claim is based on established science.

Where is your evidence for it?

I provided the link.

Don't be filibustering me.

Perish the thought. I provided a link to the science behind my claim, and asked you a question - to whit, what's the evidence behind your claim?

Now this other thing. The period from 8000-5000 years ago was the holocene optimum. Meaning the warmest period since before the last glacial period. So the arctic was in fact a great deal warmer than it is now.

No it wasn't. If it had been permafrost would have melted, just as it's melting now, and it didn't.

As was the world more generally.

No, it wasn't. If it had been, permafrost which didn't melt would have done.

[GMB]

No thats not right. The Holocene optimum was the warmest part of the holocene and it was from 8000-5000 years ago.

Compulsive and relentless lying is not going to get you past this one. The trend for the last 5000 years has been a cooling trend which is not going to change anytime soon.

Now we still don't have that evidence.

GO!!!!!!!

[GMB]

You are just going to have to stop lying mate.

Lying is not going to get you through. Now the holocene was 8000-5000 years ago and it was a lot warmer than it is now.

Now do you understand that yet. Lying about it is not going to do you any good.

Now where is that evidence?

[CapelDodger]

No thats not right. The Holocene optimum was the warmest part of the holocene and it was from 8000-5000 years ago.

No, it wasn't. It was from 6-7000 years ago, and it was not as warm as today - otherwise the permafrost that didn't melt would have done, as it's now doing.

Compulsive and relentless lying is not going to get you past this one..

Constant repetition will not make your claim true. Permafrost is melting now : that is an observed fact. Permafrost did not melt during the Holocene Optimum : that is an observed fact (from permafrost cores). Ergo it was not as warm then.

The trend for the last 5000 years has been a cooling trend which is not going to change anytime soon

It has already changed. The natural cooling trend during this interglacial has been reversed in the last few decades, and has already outstripped 5000 years of cooling. Makes you think, doesn't it?

Now we still don't have that evidence.

GO!!!!!!!

I'm still waiting on your evidence. Unless that was it, in which case I'm unconvinced to put it mildly. Which I always do, of course.

[lomiller]

The evidence for evolution isn't direct but it is convergent and coming from all different angles.

Not according to the ID web sites.




But the evidence backing up this global warming racket is entirely missing. Not indirect. Not convergent. Entirely absent.

Peer reviewed papers on global warming abound, papers that disagree, are few and far between. Peer reviewed papers on evolution abound, peer reviewed papers that disagree are few and far between.

[CapelDodger]

Peer reviewed papers on global warming abound, papers that disagree, are few and far between. Peer reviewed papers on evolution abound, peer reviewed papers that disagree are few and far between.

Be advised : mhaze may demand to know how many peer-reviewed papers constitute a tipping-point :cool:.

[GMB]

There is no evidence in any peer reviewed paper or any other sort of paper that industrial-CO2 causes substantial warming.

If I'm not right why not hand over that paper. You cannot do it because it does not exist.

Bad skeptic. Very bad skeptic. Mistaking research-grant-whoring and sentiment for evidence. We didn't want to know about the effects of research-grant-whoring. Nor did we need to be advised on matters of science-worker sentiment.

Science-worker-sentiment is not scientific evidence as any authentic skeptic ought to know.

I'm assuming then that your group evidence-filibuster is set to last a very long time.

Lets cut it short and you hand over the evidence now.

[GMB]

I can see why you are calling yourself a dodger capel.

Lets have that evidence.

GO!!!!!!

[GMB]

So to the rest of you skeptics thats its all it took. It was always just a pseudo-religion coupled with a racket. All you had to do was ask them for evidence. The fraudulent nature of the movement is revealed when they keep on stalling on this matter of evidence.

Its a QED right there.

[mhaze]

... onset of permafrost-melt is already behind us; it came on relatively rapidly, over the last eight or ten years with a definite acceleration in the last few years. It is a self-reinforcing mechanism, obviously. Thus the tipping-point. No.

It's analysis by the method I proposed would show it to be or not to be.
I don't share your obsession with precise quantification. ....You're simply avoiding the physical fact of melting permafrost and its direct implications. Refusing to approach the subject without precise numbers for everything is futile.Refusing to quantify observations and compare them numerically with predictions from various hypotheses is the denial of scientific method.

The Arctic wasn't much warmer 6-7000 years ago otherwise the permafrost would have melted then - and it didn't...”The climate in the northern regions has never been milder since the last Ice Age than it was about 6000-7000 years ago. We still don’t know whether the Arctic Ocean was completely ice free, but there was more open water in the area north of Greenland than there is today,” says Astrid Lyså, a geologist and researcher at the Geological Survey of Norway (NGU).
Arctic was much warmer 6000-7000 years ago (http://www.ngu.no/en-gb/Aktuelt/2008/Less-ice-in-the-Arctic-Ocean-6000-7000-years-ago/)

Astrid disagrees. ...

[DogB]

Astrid disagrees. ...

Astrid seems to be putting a lot of faith in a few 6000 year old hillocks. Not saying she's wrong, just sayin....

[mhaze]

Astrid seems to be putting a lot of faith in a few 6000 year old hillocks. Not saying she's wrong, just sayin....
“A second, rarely touched upon question is associated with the apparently limited amount of organic carbon that had been released from permafrost terrain in previous periods of climatic warming such as e.g. the Medieval Warm Period or during the Holocene Climatic Optimum. There appear to be no significant CH4-excursions in ice core records of Antarctica or Greenland during these time periods which otherwise might serve as evidence for a massive release of methane into the atmosphere from degrading permafrost terrains.”

Reference:
Delisle, G. 2007. Near-surface permafrost degradation: How severe during the 21st century? Geophysical Research Letters, 34, L09503, doi:10.1029/2007GL029323.


Delisle disagrees , too...


:D More?

[DogB]

“A second, rarely touched upon question is associated with the apparently limited amount of organic carbon that had been released from permafrost terrain in previous periods of climatic warming such as e.g. the Medieval Warm Period or during the Holocene Climatic Optimum. There appear to be no significant CH4-excursions in ice core records of Antarctica or Greenland during these time periods which otherwise might serve as evidence for a massive release of methane into the atmosphere from degrading permafrost terrains.”

Reference:
Delisle, G. 2007. Near-surface permafrost degradation: How severe during the 21st century? Geophysical Research Letters, 34, L09503, doi:10.1029/2007GL029323.


Delisle disagrees , too...


:D More?

Sorry, I'm confused (happens a lot dammit).

I suggested that one line of evidence for a warmer Arctic 6000 years ago is perhaps a little sketchy and you counter with an article discussing the stability of permifrost to warming events.

I don't get the connection. If I'm being stupid by all means let me know.

[lomiller]

Science-worker-sentiment is not scientific evidence as any authentic skeptic ought to know.



Once again you are echoing the ID crowd and their “skepticism” of evolution. Skepticism is not a license to disbeliever anything you don’t want to hear so you can keep holding onto your irrational beliefs.




If I'm not right why not hand over that paper.

There are clearly far too many such papers to link individually, so I’ll point you this literature review in Science.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686


That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.


There is of course an even larger more comprehensive literature review that looked in detail at several thousand peer reviewed papers, called the 4th IPCC assessment.

I was going to quote the references for the chapter on attribution (ch 9), but the list went on for 17 pages

[mhaze]

Sorry, I'm confused (happens a lot dammit).

I suggested that one line of evidence for a warmer Arctic 6000 years ago is perhaps a little sketchy and you counter with an article discussing the stability of permifrost to warming events.

I don't get the connection. If I'm being stupid by all means let me know.Either it was warmer, permafrost melted and did not release massive quantities of methane or (article's assertion) permafrost did not melt then in sufficient quantities to have noticable effects thus....

No reason to worry about current permafrost.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/05/24/cooling-the-permafrost-scare/

And it was certainly warmer in the Arctic than now:

The Holocene Climate Optimum warm event consisted of increases of up to 4 °C near the North Pole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Pole) (in one study, winter warming of 3 to 9 °C and summer of 2 to 6 °C in northern central Siberia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberia))[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum#cite_note-koshkarova2004-0). .........Of 140 sites across the western Arctic, there is clear evidence for warmer-than-present conditions at 120 sites. At 16 sites where quantitative estimates have been obtained, local HTM temperatures were on average 1.6±0.8 °C higher than present.


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

[lomiller]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081204133853.htm


Uniquely old tree remains have recently been uncovered by the thawing of the rapidly shrinking Kårsa Glacier west of Abisko in Lapland, in northernmost Sweden. The finds show that in the last 7,000 years it has probably never been so warm as during the last century.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071030092705.htm


Geologist Johannes Koch of The College of Wooster found the deceptively fresh and intact tree stumps beside the retreating glaciers of Garibaldi Provincial Park, about 40 miles (60 km) north of Vancouver, British Columbia. What he wanted to know was how long ago the glaciers made their first forays into a long-lost forest to kill the trees and bury them under ice.

To find out, Koch radiocarbon-dated wood from the stumps to see how long they have been in cold storage. The result was a surprising 7000 years.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080516121650.htm


Sweden's mountains are growing greener. At the border between woods and bare mountain, trees that require warm temperatures, such as oak, elm, maple, and black alder, have become established for the first time in 8,000 years.

[lomiller]

Either it was warmer, permafrost melted and did not release massive quantities of methane or (article's assertion) permafrost did not melt then in sufficient quantities to have noticable effects thus....


Or CO2 was released but it still came short of today’s level. (explaining why temperature stopped going up in the Holocene optimum but are at similar levels and rising quickly today.)

[GMB]

There are clearly far too many such papers to link individually, so I’ll point you this literature review in Science.




It would be helpful if you came up with some evidence and not wild goose chases. Now we've got three specific hypothesis that we want evidence for. Do you remember them? You might have thought that we wanted some sort of wild goose chase but that is not the case. What we were after was evidence specifically related to one of the three hypotheses.

Don't give me that rubbish conflation with evolution. Those that believe in some sort of evolution have evidence for it. But you don't evidence for this other racket. Else you would make good with it.

Lets have that evidence.

GO!!!!!!!

[GMB]

Or CO2 was released but it still came short of today’s level. (explaining why temperature stopped going up in the Holocene optimum but are at similar levels and rising quickly today.)

We cannot let you get away with that particular lie. The temperature is not going up quickly. Its not going up at all. In fact its dropping.

[lomiller]

It would be helpful if you came up with some evidence and not wild goose chases.


So you consider papers in Science “a wild goose chase”? I think I will leave off there with a hearth yikes and Q. E. D.

[GMB]

So you consider papers in Science “a wild goose chase”? I think I will leave off there with a hearth yikes and Q. E. D.

Evidence has to be related to a specific hypothesis for it to be meaningful. This science Pravda you keep linking to? Which of the three hypotheses do you think you have found evidence for and why?

I could just refer you to google scholar as my counter-argument and I still couldn't be as pointless as what you are being.

Don't hide behind links. Relate your concrete facts that you think you've found to one or other specific hypothesis.

GO!!!!!

[GMB]

So nothing. So far no evidence.

It has to be a pretty lame skeptic who has not sorted it out that this is a baseless racket by now.

[GreyICE]

MHaze is a dedicated individual with his particular soap box.

He's wrong, and he has the typical blinders that cause the ends (in this case proving that his pet project is superior) to justify the means (Lying, misrepresentation, and logical inconsistency). But he is not per se jousting with us just to get feathers ruffled.

58 posts in and another fanboy has managed to go off on multiple threads (http://forums.randi.org/search.php?searchid=1775653).

I don't care to be trolled. As they say: NEXT!

[DogB]

Either it was warmer, permafrost melted and did not release massive quantities of methane or (article's assertion) permafrost did not melt then in sufficient quantities to have noticable effects thus....(Snip)

But we weren’t talking about permafrost. We were talking about past temperatures.

I claimed that maybe your link was questionable and maybe it didn't get as warm as Ms Astrid claimed and you countered with the fact that the permafrost may not have melted.

Is it just me or does anybody else see the problem here?

[GMB]

As they say: NEXT!

Don't come here with that mindlessness. Lets have that evidence dummy.

[GMB]

But we weren’t talking about permafrost. We were talking about past temperatures.

I claimed that maybe your link was questionable and maybe it didn't get as warm as Ms Astrid claimed and you countered with the fact that the permafrost may not have melted.

Is it just me or does anybody else see the problem here?

What is your problem? You are making it up as you go along. Thats your problem. Still its probably the least of your problems. But the fact is that the Holocene maximum was from 8000 to 5000 years ago. It was a great deal warmer than it is now. And the trend for the last 5000 years has been downhill.

Also that time period stands to reason. Since 8000 years there was solar activity even stronger it seems than the extremely powerful solar activity of the 20th century. And 6000 years ago was where the Malinkovitch cycles were at their optimum. Hence there is nothing out of kilter about the empirical evidence.

[TrueSceptic]

See you are just a compulsive liar. You have got nothing. You have no evidence. You will refuse point blank to come up with any evidence.

Evidence? I don't have to show you any stinkin' evidence!

You know perfectly well that there has been a huge amount of research done on this subject. I suggest you start with the IPCC reports and follow up the links.


And this is why this global warming racket is by far the most transparent of frauds. Because its an evidence-free-zone and any true skeptic worth his salt is in a position to ask for the evidence and it is NEVER forthcoming.

This is the most offensive of all baseless rackets since it is the one which intends up front to impose the most scandalous economic costs on everyone.
Transparent only to the truly gifted. GMB For High Office, I say!

[TrueSceptic]

G'Day, GMB.

Just wondering: have you and Graeme Bird ever been seen in the same room at the same time?

Followed up those links yet?

Duh! I should've realised it was you all along!

[a_unique_person]

GMB?

[mhaze]

But we weren’t talking about permafrost. We were talking about past temperatures.

I claimed that maybe your link was questionable and maybe it didn't get as warm as Ms Astrid claimed and you countered with the fact that the permafrost may not have melted.

Is it just me or does anybody else see the problem here?Capel claims permafrost melt as a current example of tipping point style change you can believe in. Based on it currently being hotter . Capel denies the Holocene max was hotter bacause if so, the permafrost woud have melted.

Lomiller presents studies that it was hotter, but 7000 years ago, not 5-6000.

So it was hotter, the exact locations and time varying, and there was no massive permafrost melt releasing billions of tons of BadStuff.

Point: Permafrost is not a runaway tipping point.

[TrueSceptic]

GMB?
Graeme Bird (http://graemebird.wordpress.com/http://).

I know his style and MO. I should've spotted it straight away.

[lomiller]

But we weren’t talking about permafrost. We were talking about past temperatures.

I claimed that maybe your link was questionable and maybe it didn't get as warm as Ms Astrid claimed and you countered with the fact that the permafrost may not have melted.

Is it just me or does anybody else see the problem here?

I’m not 100% convinced his link is questionable, rather it’s more likely a strawman with a little cherry picking thrown in. No one has come out and said we have surpassed the Holocene maximum. As my previous links show there is evidence we are closing in on it. Those links, like mhazes are local rather then global in nature. Unfortunately true global temperature reconstructions for the Holocene maximum are not available yet so it’s unlikely anyone will come out and say we have surpassed it until we have surpassed it by a very wide margin.

What is known is that CO2 levels are currently on par with 125Ky ago when temperatures were about 3 deg warmer then today. In that particular case the additional CO2 had to have come from the oceans or permafrost because there we no humans burning coal. This is a strong indicator we are near the point where further warming will cause a lot of natural CO2 to be released. There is no firm evidence of exactly how much more warming is needed for this to happen or if “in the pipeline warming” is sufficient to cause it.

[shadron]

"Runaway" is an evil word in engineering; it is a lie. But we still use it; it's so descriptive

No process is ever truly runaway. What systems do is search out points of stability, just as mhaze suggests - they're called "metastable" because they are relatively stable (i.e., they present negative feedback rather than positive feedback) as long as the system inputs don't change too much. People familiar with their Dawkins will recognize an analogy to Dawkin's Climbing Mount Improbable. And such points always exist, because systems, if driven far enough, will saturate - that is, will exhaust the resources or become unable to use more resource, even when offered. Those saurated inputs no longer control the system.

Suppose you drive a current through a piece of wire. The wire will heat up, and that will increase it's resistance. Less current will be drawn overall, but that current will heat up the spot on the wire where the resistance is highest, which will heat the wire, driving up the resistance, which will further concentrate the heating effect. If the current is not limited, you have posiive feedback resulting in thermal runaway. But, it cannot go on forever. Eventually a non-linearity occurs when the wire melts and breaks the current. Now you can no longer control the wire's temperaure with the current source.

On Venus, thermal runaway did not result in an infinitely hot planet. A metastable point was reached where the system could no longer supply increased heating to the planet (unless the sun grows hotter), and so runaway, rather than Running Away, simply resulted in reaching a new equilibrium, a balance, at a higher temperature than, presumably, it had before.

The same thing has happened on earth, many times. 550 million years ago, conditions resulted in dropping temperatures; increased glaciation further dropped temperatures, a classical positive feedback which resulted in "anti-thermal runaway", and the entire surface of the planet iced over. Once that happened, the planet couldn't cool further, because it had saturated on the cooling effects by becoming entirely covered in ice. It stayed this way for perhaps 30 million years. Eventually, though, the furnace in the earth's interior melted a little of the ice, resulting in increased heating as the reflective ice was rolled back, and another feedback loop resulted in a relatively fast warmup - and also a classic temperature overshoot, soon corrected back to something we recognize as more or less earth normal temperature.

Runaway doesn't mean running off forever, it just means seeking out some other system stability point.

Systems theory is all well and good when you know everything you need to know about the system and its inputs, but we are far from that for the earth. IMO, making bets without the knowledge to predict reliably what's going to happen is freakin' poor engineering.

[lomiller]

Lomiller presents studies that it was hotter, but 7000 years ago, not 5-6000.



Incorrect. Those studies show its warmer today then 7000 years ago. The temperate at which a glacier covers a forest needs to be lower then the temperature to melt that glacier back far enough to see its remnants. Similarly the temperature at which a forest can survive once established is lower then what it must be to become established in the first place.

[lomiller]

On Venus, thermal runaway did not result in an infinitely hot planet. A metastable point was reached where the system could no longer supply increased heating to the planet (unless the sun grows hotter), and so runaway, rather than Running Away, simply resulted in reaching a new equilibrium, a balance, at a higher temperature than, presumably, it had before.

True, and several people, including myself, have pointed that out. The question, however, was about a “Venus style runaway” I.E. a runaway that took the earth well outside the bounds where life was possible and prohibited a return to conditions suitable for life.

This condition is theoretically possible on earth should we reach a temperate where carbonate rock broke down, but there is no know condition that could cause that to happen.

[Pipirr]

The problem that I see is we don't have any good temperature data for today, because of all the problems with the surface network and UHI. They just aren't as reliable as proxies.

So while we are very confident of past temperature extremes, like the medieval warm period and the Holocene maximum, we can have little confidence that today's temperatures are warmer because our global temperature measurement networks are all so super-crappy.

[mhaze]

Incorrect. Those studies show its warmer today then 7000 years ago. The temperate at which a glacier covers a forest needs to be lower then the temperature to melt that glacier back far enough to see its remnants. Similarly the temperature at which a forest can survive once established is lower then what it must be to become established in the first place.

No one has come out and said we have surpassed the Holocene maximum.

The Arctic wasn't much warmer 6-7000 years ago otherwise the permafrost would have melted then - and it didn't...

Now, would you guys please make up your mind? Or if you are trying to avoid the difficult subject by dancing around specific periods of years during the Holocene? Wikipedia beckons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum)- (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum) The Holocene Climate Optimum warm event consisted of increases of up to 4 °C near the North Pole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Pole) (in one study, winter warming of 3 to 9 °C and summer of 2 to 6 °C in northern central Siberia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberia))[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum#cite_note-koshkarova2004-0). .........Of 140 sites across the western Arctic, there is clear evidence for warmer-than-present conditions at 120 sites. At 16 sites where quantitative estimates have been obtained, local HTM temperatures were on average 1.6±0.8 °C higher than present.
Second, the question posed that this diversion obfuscates: So it was hotter, the exact locations and time varying, and there was no massive permafrost melt releasing billions of tons of BadStuff. Point: Permafrost is not a runaway tipping point.

Third, question posed and not answered prior to secondary diversion:Really? So you can't say, there are

J=61 (latitude)
N number of tons of stinking goo that used to be permafrost at latitude J (use data array of permafrost per degree latitude)

which at current temperatures will release X1 MegaBiggie Tons of BadStuff
which in turn will affect global climate by Y1 degrees

causing a progressive northern expansion of the Permafrost Melt Zone by 0.1 degree latitude
J=J+0.1 (march latitude up toward pole); if j=90N, stop program

GOTO 2


Recursive Doom? I want to know all about this Doom. Can't we calulateify it?
Fourth, ignoring tertiary diversion, back to a precise version of the OP:80C difference between pole and equator, a distance of some 8000 miles. So very roughly, climate moves 100 miles per 1C change. How big a metastable temperature range is there before Earth moves to the alternate stable point that exists past the (tipping points, runaway, blah blah blah). Either degrees C, K, F, or R may be used in the answer.I would like to thank Zytheran, GreyICE, Pipirr and Shadron for trying to seriously contribute to this difficult topic.

[BenBurch]

The Holocene optimum was the warmest part of the holocene and it was from 8000-5000 years ago.

Prove it. (with recent science.)

[DogB]

(Snip) Point: Permafrost is not a runaway tipping point.

I never argued otherwise (though personally I think the jury is still out on this one), I just got confused about what you were trying to prove.

Nothing to see here, move along.:)

[DogB]

What is your problem? You are making it up as you go along. Thats your problem. (Snip)

My problem? My problem at the moment is you.

Mhaze and I get our wires crossed over the evidential value of the shape of some little ridges on a gravel beach and you stick your nose in.

What is it with you? I mean yes, I was mildly critical of one of your blog posts but Jebus man, that must happen all the time. What did I do to deserve all this personal attention?

[GMB]

This myth that the holocene wasn't warmer comes from those lunatics at Goddard. What these guys do is when their computer program is comprehensively falsified by its inability to back-test with the data they just decide that the data is wrong and their computer is right. So the notion that the holocene was from 8000 to 5000 years ago and a lot warmer stands without contest.

[GMB]

I mean yes, I was mildly critical of one of your blog posts but Jebus man, that must happen all the time.

TWICE!!!!

And you are not thinking. You are supposed to be a scientist. Do better. Try harder.

Onward.

[CapelDodger]

No.

It's analysis by the method I proposed would show it to be or not to be.

The outcome will show whether or not permafrost-melting represents a tipping-point.

Refusing to quantify observations and compare them numerically with predictions from various hypotheses is the denial of scientific method.

There's more to science than numbers. There's obervation, for instance, and widespread melting of permafrost has been observed.

I can imagine you on the Titanic on that fateful night, refusing to believe that the ship was sinking until you'd been told the exact weight of the iceberg and the precise depth of water under the keel.


”The climate in the northern regions has never been milder since the last Ice Age than it was about 6000-7000 years ago. We still don’t know whether the Arctic Ocean was completely ice free, but there was more open water in the area north of Greenland than there is today,” says Astrid Lyså, a geologist and researcher at the Geological Survey of Norway (NGU).
Arctic was much warmer 6000-7000 years ago (http://www.ngu.no/en-gb/Aktuelt/2008/Less-ice-in-the-Arctic-Ocean-6000-7000-years-ago/)

Astrid disagrees. ...

That's Astrid's problem, not mine. If the Arctic was warmer than today 6-7000 years ago then permafrost would have melted, as it's currently doing. More open water north of Greenland is not the whole story.

[CapelDodger]

This myth that the holocene wasn't warmer comes from those lunatics at Goddard. What these guys do is when their computer program is comprehensively falsified by its inability to back-test with the data they just decide that the data is wrong and their computer is right./quote]

That's a damn' lie.

[quote]So the notion that the holocene was from 8000 to 5000 years ago and a lot warmer stands without contest.

No it doesn't. The Holocene is a lot longer than that, and getting longer by the day.

[BenBurch]

This myth that the holocene wasn't warmer comes from those lunatics at Goddard. What these guys do is when their computer program is comprehensively falsified by its inability to back-test with the data they just decide that the data is wrong and their computer is right. So the notion that the holocene was from 8000 to 5000 years ago and a lot warmer stands without contest.

So, why can't you find me the papers that say based on recent studies it was warmer then?

[GMB]

So, why can't you find me the papers that say based on recent studies it was warmer then?

Its not a contested matter and there is no reason for the papers to be recent. Why waste money studying something again if no-ones contesting it?

I mean I COULD find one no doubt. But there is no point. Waste of time. The only people contesting it are computer programming alarmist nutballs. And they aren't doing it on the basis of evidence.

[CapelDodger]

I’m not 100% convinced his link is questionable, rather it’s more likely a strawman with a little cherry picking thrown in. No one has come out and said we have surpassed the Holocene maximum. As my previous links show there is evidence we are closing in on it. Those links, like mhazes are local rather then global in nature. Unfortunately true global temperature reconstructions for the Holocene maximum are not available yet so it’s unlikely anyone will come out and say we have surpassed it until we have surpassed it by a very wide margin.

Obviously I'm of the opinion that Arctic temperatures have already exceeded the Holocene maximum, because of the permafrost signal. (We're bearing down on an ice-free Arctic as well, which is another, and reciprocal, signal.) It probably happened in the last 10-20 years.

Permafrost is a serious player in the climate scene. It has a significant role in glacial/interglacial transitions, and it's going to play a significant role in climate warming on this occasion. Mark my words :). (I'm on the scent of a "Told you so" with this one.)

What is known is that CO2 levels are currently on par with 125Ky ago when temperatures were about 3 deg warmer then today. In that particular case the additional CO2 had to have come from the oceans or permafrost because there we no humans burning coal. This is a strong indicator we are near the point where further warming will cause a lot of natural CO2 to be released. There is no firm evidence of exactly how much more warming is needed for this to happen or if “in the pipeline warming” is sufficient to cause it.

We're still playing climate catch-up with the existing CO2-load, no doubt about that. And the load is going to increase - no doubt about that either.

[CapelDodger]

Its not a contested matter and there is no reason for the papers to be recent. Why waste money studying something again if no-ones contesting it?

I'm contesting it.

I mean I COULD find one no doubt. But there is no point. Waste of time. The only people contesting it are computer programming alarmist nutballs. And they aren't doing it on the basis of evidence.

Melting permafrost is evidence.

[GMB]

Obviously I'm of the opinion that Arctic temperatures have already exceeded the Holocene maximum, because of the permafrost signal.

Well they haven't. And the inference is not a sound one. One of the CO2-bedwetters made a very good point. About the permafrost maybe melting 125K (from memory) or so ago. So even if extra CO2 and methane did warm the place up, which they wouldn't, there is no worries because its getting colder and not warmer and the likelihood of it all melting is just not there.

What would be good is if it did warm us up. That would be a blessing and everything that Swedish fellow Arrenhius wanted. But its not going to happen since its not going to melt and it wouldn't do jack if it did.

[CapelDodger]

So, why can't you find me the papers that say based on recent studies it was warmer then?

Good luck with that. They'd have to contend with the permafrost thing, which must be discouraging from the outset. I expect the cited research (such as there is) to be far more productive oceanographically than climatologically. Everything gets drafted into climate these days, willy-nilly.

I think it's quite likely that the Arctic 6-7000 years ago (3-4000 years into this interglacial) was as warm as it was in the mid-90's. It's warmer now, and in that small difference the permafrost thing kicks in. Is that a tipping-point or what?

Discuss :).

[CapelDodger]

Capel claims permafrost melt as a current example of tipping point style change you can believe in. Based on it currently being hotter . Capel denies the Holocene max was hotter bacause if so, the permafrost woud have melted.

Lomiller presents studies that it was hotter, but 7000 years ago, not 5-6000.

So it was hotter, the exact locations and time varying, and there was no massive permafrost melt releasing billions of tons of BadStuff.

Point: Permafrost is not a runaway tipping point.

Marvellous work. With that piece of sophistry you're able to avoid confronting the uncomfortable reality that permafrost is melting now, which it didn't do 6-7000 years ago. There's no refuge in the past, you know.

When permafrost melts it starts giving out CO2 and CH4 (autonomously), which constitutes a positive feedback. There's no shortage of the stuff, and the CO2 does accumulate, so it's going to keep doing it for a good while with a cumulative effect.

How is the start of that process not a tipping-point? And it has started, relatively recently.

[CapelDodger]

Well they haven't. And the inference is not a sound one. One of the CO2-bedwetters made a very good point. About the permafrost maybe melting 125K (from memory) or so ago. So even if extra CO2 and methane did warm the place up, which they wouldn't, there is no worries because its getting colder and not warmer and the likelihood of it all melting is just not there.

What would be good is if it did warm us up. That would be a blessing and everything that Swedish fellow Arrenhius wanted. But its not going to happen since its not going to melt and it wouldn't do jack if it did.

You seem to be a very angry person. Do you feel beset? You should chill a little; angry is no way to live. It can even kill you.

So anyway, what did our old friend Arrenhius want? Dictatorship of the proletariat, was it? Swedes are notoriously Socialist.

[GMB]

Stop filibustering and make good with that evidence

[lomiller]

Stop filibustering and make good with that evidence

Seems to me you are the only one who has made a claim that actually requires evidence, evidence we are still waiting for…

[GMB]

Seems to me you are the only one who has made a claim that actually requires evidence, evidence we are still waiting for…

No you are lying but its not unexpected that you would be. This is a movement with no evidence of its own that appears to get by on the sole basis of nitpicking their opponents. One way of never having your evidence shot down is never coming up with any in the first place and this is a fabulous strategy that the global warming fraudsters have put into place. Really quite marvelous. Trying to get evidence from them is like trying to move a Bill Clinton court case along.

If you go to Deltoid, Gristmill, realclimate and Coby Becks excuse for no evidence blog, you will never find any evidence there. And so we see that the fundamental errors of Karl Popper or perhaps Popper interpreters have kicked in with people who can never know how to figure out right from wrong. It is thought that an entire case can be made without evidence. That it can be made via faux-falsification. Just to arbitrarily assume something is true when it isn't, wait for the inevitable criticism of the untruth, and then you get to put this faux-falsification into practice.

The entire case is based on this. Not on convergent verification. But rather on mindless nitpicking of the other guy and obsessive refusal to bring forth any evidence.

[shadron]

This myth that the holocene wasn't warmer comes from those lunatics at Goddard. What these guys do is when their computer program is comprehensively falsified by its inability to back-test with the data they just decide that the data is wrong and their computer is right. So the notion that the holocene was from 8000 to 5000 years ago and a lot warmer stands without contest.

You sure are good at the assertion game. Any evidence for all the invective, or are you immune to that too?

[GMB]

Sure I have evidence for this invective. Here is a demonstration of Goddard overturning the evidence on something you have some knowledge of. That is to say the snowball earth. This is an example of extreme un-science that I describe here:

http://graemebird.wordpress.com/2007/05/20/the-goddard-institute-the-curse-of-the-lone-paradigm/

[TrueSceptic]

You seem to be a very angry person. Do you feel beset? You should chill a little; angry is no way to live. It can even kill you.

So anyway, what did our old friend Arrenhius want? Dictatorship of the proletariat, was it? Swedes are notoriously Socialist.
Just in case anyone thinks it's just us at JREF who make GMB so angry, see this (http://notahedgehog.wordpress.com/2008/08/26/speaking-of-irony/).:jaw-dropp

[Pixel42]

No you are lying but its not unexpected that you would be. This is a movement with no evidence of its own that appears to get by on the sole basis of nitpicking their opponents. One way of never having your evidence shot down is never coming up with any in the first place and this is a fabulous strategy that the global warming fraudsters have put into place. Really quite marvelous. Trying to get evidence from them is like trying to move a Bill Clinton court case along.

If you go to Deltoid, Gristmill, realclimate and Coby Becks excuse for no evidence blog, you will never find any evidence there. And so we see that the fundamental errors of Karl Popper or perhaps Popper interpreters have kicked in with people who can never know how to figure out right from wrong. It is thought that an entire case can be made without evidence. That it can be made via faux-falsification. Just to arbitrarily assume something is true when it isn't, wait for the inevitable criticism of the untruth, and then you get to put this faux-falsification into practice.

The entire case is based on this. Not on convergent verification. But rather on mindless nitpicking of the other guy and obsessive refusal to bring forth any evidence.
Amazing. Simply reverse it and it is a completely accurate description of the deniers' case and tactics.

[a_unique_person]

Just in case anyone thinks it's just us at JREF who make GMB so angry, see this (http://notahedgehog.wordpress.com/2008/08/26/speaking-of-irony/).:jaw-dropp

Tourettes?

[TrueSceptic]

Tourettes?
This is a term much misused. Tourette's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourette%27s).

GMB has something else.

[mhaze]

Marvellous work. With that piece of sophistry you're able to avoid confronting the uncomfortable reality that permafrost is melting now, which it didn't do 6-7000 years ago....When permafrost melts it starts giving out CO2 and CH4 (autonomously), which constitutes a positive feedback. There's no shortage of the stuff, and the CO2 does accumulate, so it's going to keep doing it for a good while with a cumulative effect.

How is the start of that process not a tipping-point? And it has started, relatively recently.Not sophristry but accurate reporting of the quoted and linked articles. Clearly you did not read the second posted links, which explained this and answered your questions asked then, and yet again, now.

Delisle: scenarios calling for massive release of methane in the near future from degrading permafrost are questionable.
...No one has come out and said we have surpassed the Holocene maximum. As my previous links show there is evidence we are closing in on it. Those links, like mhazes are local rather then global in nature. Unfortunately true global temperature reconstructions for the Holocene maximum are not available yet...."Global temperatures" are irrelevant.

For purposes of determining whether permafrost is a "tipping point and/or creates runaway" only compare Arctic. Lots of those for Holocene 5000-10000 years ago, lots for current period. Scientific conclusions about permafrost not creating a "tipping point" are being made.

Permafrost melt - not Tipping Point Climate Change you can believe in.“A second, rarely touched upon question is associated with the apparently limited amount of organic carbon that had been released from permafrost terrain in previous periods of climatic warming such as e.g. the Medieval Warm Period or during the Holocene Climatic Optimum. There appear to be no significant CH4-excursions in ice core records of Antarctica or Greenland during these time periods which otherwise might serve as evidence for a massive release of methane into the atmosphere from degrading permafrost terrains.”
Reference:
Delisle, G. 2007. Near-surface permafrost degradation: How severe during the 21st century? (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL029323.shtml) Geophysical Research Letters, 34, L09503, doi:10.1029/2007GL029323.

Discussion at World Climate Report. (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/05/24/cooling-the-permafrost-scare/)

[lomiller]

Obviously I'm of the opinion that Arctic temperatures have already exceeded the Holocene maximum, because of the permafrost signal. (We're bearing down on an ice-free Arctic as well, which is another, and reciprocal, signal.) It probably happened in the last 10-20 years.


Genetic studies show populations of Right Whales in the North Pacific and North Atlantic haven’t mixed in ~5 million years, and this is backed up with an absence of micro-fossils in the Artic basin. An ice free artic would be a pretty good indication that at least regionally we are at a 5 million year temperature maximum in the artic.

This isn’t consistent with global temperatures, though. Some of the effects going on do warm the Artic more then the rest of the planet but I still can’t see it breaking the 125Kya mark just yet. Most of the models for sea ice decline in the artic show periods of rapid decline followed by periods of greater stability. While it’s earlier then what’s seen in the models I suspect that what we are seeing now is one of these rapid declines and it will be followed by several decades of stability. Sometime after 2040, when most of the warming from CO2 in the atmosphere today has been felt we will start to see ice free summers. Maybe we will see an ice free pole in the next decade, though.

[GMB]

Genetic studies show populations of Right Whales in the North Pacific and North Atlantic haven’t mixed in ~5 million years, and this is backed up with an absence of micro-fossils in the Artic basin. An ice free artic would be a pretty good indication that at least regionally we are at a 5 million year temperature maximum in the artic.


That doesn't follow. They may have had the opportunity to mix for short intervals far more recently but they may not have taken it up. One ought not go out of ones way for this sort of thing. If the polar beer and the grizzly can still mate, it does not follow that they will, and it wouldn't have been that long ago that they would have been essentially the same species.

Essentially the same species and you could have considered them as different races rather than different species.

[GMB]

While it’s earlier then what’s seen in the models I suspect that what we are seeing now is one of these rapid declines and it will be followed by several decades of stability. Sometime after 2040, when most of the warming from CO2 in the atmosphere today has been felt we will start to see ice free summers. Maybe we will see an ice free pole in the next decade, though.


No thats not going to happen. It will start icing up again, effective almost immediately.

[I Ratant]

Global warming!
Pishaw!

[BenBurch]

Its not a contested matter and there is no reason for the papers to be recent. Why waste money studying something again if no-ones contesting it?

I mean I COULD find one no doubt. But there is no point. Waste of time. The only people contesting it are computer programming alarmist nutballs. And they aren't doing it on the basis of evidence.

Its a totally contested matter.

Now, prove it.

[GMB]

Its a totally contested matter.

Now, prove it.

No you are lying. Its not a contested matter. The history of it is that instead of admitting that their models were wrong the CO2-bedwetters disputed the reality of it. Thats no basis for it being a contested matter at all. The guys affecting to dispute this were not scientists at all.

Who are you talking about? Stoat? Hansen? Schmidt?

There is no empirical basis to contest the claim. You are just talking rubbish mate. Stop lying and lets see some evidence.

[GMB]

And an Obama-golden calf worshiper too. You are just an embarrassment mate.

[CapelDodger]

Genetic studies show populations of Right Whales in the North Pacific and North Atlantic haven’t mixed in ~5 million years, and this is backed up with an absence of micro-fossils in the Artic basin. An ice free artic would be a pretty good indication that at least regionally we are at a 5 million year temperature maximum in the artic.

When we see those Right Whale populations mixing we can be confident we're in new trerritory, at least regionally. Of course, it's more likely something much smaller and more numerous will cross over first. Hopefully nothing too invasive.

This isn’t consistent with global temperatures, though. Some of the effects going on do warm the Artic more then the rest of the planet but I still can’t see it breaking the 125Kya mark just yet. Most of the models for sea ice decline in the artic show periods of rapid decline followed by periods of greater stability. While it’s earlier then what’s seen in the models I suspect that what we are seeing now is one of these rapid declines and it will be followed by several decades of stability. Sometime after 2040, when most of the warming from CO2 in the atmosphere today has been felt we will start to see ice free summers. Maybe we will see an ice free pole in the next decade, though.

I don't think the sea-ice is thick enough to stabilise. We're seeing the end-game, IMO, and there'll be an ice-free summer by 2015 (inclusive). Melting permafrost and reducing sea-ice work off each other, and then there's the usual human contribution. And the positive phase of the solar cycle. None of it good for the sea-ice.

[CapelDodger]

Just in case anyone thinks it's just us at JREF who make GMB so angry, see this (http://notahedgehog.wordpress.com/2008/08/26/speaking-of-irony/).:jaw-dropp

I had a feeling it was a personality trait. What a way to live,eh? But each to his own.

[GMB]

"I don't think the sea-ice is thick enough to stabilise. We're seeing the end-game, IMO, and there'll be an ice-free summer by 2015"

No we won't. Thats just ridiculous.

[CapelDodger]

Systems theory is all well and good when you know everything you need to know about the system and its inputs, but we are far from that for the earth. IMO, making bets without the knowledge to predict reliably what's going to happen is freakin' poor engineering.

I sincerely hope that engineering and making bets don't go together. If I'm wrong please don't tell me.

The Arctic is a relatively simple system and we know enough about its inputs and the physics involved to make rational predictions. Purely as an intellectual exercise, in my case.

[CapelDodger]

"I don't think the sea-ice is thick enough to stabilise. We're seeing the end-game, IMO, and there'll be an ice-free summer by 2015"

No we won't. Thats just ridiculous.

If you make it to 2015 we can meet up then and exchange notes.

[CapelDodger]

That doesn't follow. They may have had the opportunity to mix for short intervals far more recently but they may not have taken it up. One ought not go out of ones way for this sort of thing. If the polar beer and the grizzly can still mate, it does not follow that they will, and it wouldn't have been that long ago that they would have been essentially the same species.

Right Whales will follow the plankton into the Arctic Ocean, where they'll mix. Any species will exploit newly available range. When they go back south in winter they won't necessarily go back to the ocean they came from. That could happen every year - how short an interval were you thinking of?

Essentially the same species and you could have considered them as different races rather than different species.

lomiller referred to them as different populations.

[CapelDodger]

Not sophristry but accurate reporting of the quoted and linked articles. Clearly you did not read the second posted links, which explained this and answered your questions asked then, and yet again, now.

Delisle:
scenarios calling for massive release of methane in the near future from degrading permafrost are questionable.
"Global temperatures" are irrelevant.

For purposes of determining whether permafrost is a "tipping point and/or creates runaway" only compare Arctic. Lots of those for Holocene 5000-10000 years ago, lots for current period. Scientific conclusions about permafrost not creating a "tipping point" are being made.

Permafrost melt - not Tipping Point Climate Change you can believe in.
“A second, rarely touched upon question is associated with the apparently limited amount of organic carbon that had been released from permafrost terrain in previous periods of climatic warming such as e.g. the Medieval Warm Period or during the Holocene Climatic Optimum. There appear to be no significant CH4-excursions in ice core records of Antarctica or Greenland during these time periods which otherwise might serve as evidence for a massive release of methane into the atmosphere from degrading permafrost terrains.”
Reference:
Delisle, G. 2007. Near-surface permafrost degradation: How severe during the 21st century? (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL029323.shtml) Geophysical Research Letters, 34, L09503, doi:10.1029/2007GL029323.

That confirms what I've been saying. Permafrost did not melt in the MWP or the HCO, but it is melting now. Which means the Arctic is now warmer than it was in those times, so they are not good examples of what we can expect to happen. They're not even good examples of what's already happening.

[GMB]

They won't necessarily mix. These here whales. They may look all the same to you. But thats unlikely to be the case from the whales point of view. What animal 5 million years apart has EVER remixed? Precisely none. You will not find it and its unlikely that they are still the same species. Outer-form isn't the thing. Genetic drift would be large else they would not make the 5 million year determination.

This ones a big fat furfie alright. No mammal separated by a 5 million years remixes. That would be like one of our gay friends taking an unnatural shine to some devilishly handsome monkeys.

Truly I have never heard such a daft idea. We are talking 5 million years.

[GMB]

That confirms what I've been saying. Permafrost did not melt in the MWP or the HCO, but it is melting now. Which means the Arctic is now warmer than it was in those times, so they are not good examples of what we can expect to happen. They're not even good examples of what's already happening.

You are being ridiculous. You don't know it didn't melt a little bit during the holocene optimum. You have no idea. Its not melting a great deal now and it may not have melted a great deal then or it could have melted quite a bit and you wouldn't know it. What are you claiming you know about permafrost? Just because its short for permanent-frost doesn't make it so. Some of it may well have melted and some of it may have well been reconstituted later.

The sun hasn't worked so hard as in the 20th century since the very beginning of the holocene optimum. And at the beginning of the holocene optimum there were still these big ice-sheets retreating so that could be the story right there. The big ice sheets protecting it the first time and not the solar activity later on in the holocene optimum. But in any case you are attempting to make a case based on wild conjecture sitting on a motherload of soothsaying.

[mhaze]

Genetic studies show populations of Right Whales in the North Pacific and North Atlantic haven’t mixed in ~5 million years, and this is backed up with an absence of micro-fossils in the Artic basin. An ice free artic would be a pretty good indication that at least regionally we are at a 5 million year temperature maximum in the artic. ....Denial.

Holocene Optimum was warmer.

[mhaze]

That confirms what I've been saying. Permafrost did not melt in the MWP or the HCO, but it is melting now. Which means the Arctic is now warmer than it was in those times, so they are not good examples of what we can expect to happen. They're not even good examples of what's already happening.

You are certainly welcome to your personal opinion, I only note the vast gap between it, and published science, and correct errors you made in reading it. You are trying to argue the point without reading the article, which I have already mentioned once. This conversation is over.

[CapelDodger]

You are being ridiculous. You don't know it didn't melt a little bit during the holocene optimum. You have no idea. Its not melting a great deal now and it may not have melted a great deal then or it could have melted quite a bit and you wouldn't know it. What are you claiming you know about permafrost? Just because its short for permanent-frost doesn't make it so. Some of it may well have melted and some of it may have well been reconstituted later.

mhaze provided the quote : "No CH4 excursion in the ice-cores". That's why we know the permafrost didn't melt because there is a CH4 excursion going on right now in the Arctic, due to permafrost-melt.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081217203407.htm

The sun hasn't worked so hard as in the 20th century since the very beginning of the holocene optimum.

You know this how?

And at the beginning of the holocene optimum there were still these big ice-sheets retreating so that could be the story right there. The big ice sheets protecting it the first time and not the solar activity later on in the holocene optimum. But in any case you are attempting to make a case based on wild conjecture sitting on a motherload of soothsaying.

The ice-sheets had retreated by then, so you're wasting your time on that conjecture.

[lomiller]

They won't necessarily mix.

Even if it turns out they can’t the whale lice living on them would happily jump from one to another. Genetic studies show these whale lice have also been separate for 5 million years.

[GMB]

"The ice-sheets had retreated by then, so you're wasting your time on that conjecture."

How far had they retreated 8000 years ago? How far?

And you don't have a control with these ice cores. What is the ice core situation now? You are just making things up on the basis of nothing. You say that the permafrost is going to melt. But its not. And thats soothsaying. Then you build on your own soothsaying to make your case. Without any control to say what level of melting is significant.

[GMB]

Even if it turns out they can’t the whale lice living on them would happily jump from one to another. Genetic studies show these whale lice have also been separate for 5 million years.

Is there nothing you won't lie about?

[GMB]

"For example, the differences between certain genes in whale lice groups suggest that the right whale separated into three distinct species five to six million years ago."

They are three different species???? Look at this garden-path you have attempted to lead us down. I don't like the way you are haremising those monkeys. Leave the monkeys alone. You can get arrested for this sort of behaviour fella.

[CapelDodger]

"The ice-sheets had retreated by then, so you're wasting your time on that conjecture."

How far had they retreated 8000 years ago? How far?

To where they are now.

The evidence presented for a warm Arctic in the Holocene Optimum (6-7000 years ago) involves ice-free water north of Greenland, high tree-lines, and small glaciers. Now you want the place to be covered in ice-sheets. You can't have it both ways.

And you don't have a control with these ice cores.

The ice cores reveal (according to the quote provided by mhaze) no CH4 excursions in the Holocene Optimum or the Medieval Warm Period. That's the control. If you have a problem with it take it up with mhaze.

What is the ice core situation now?

Still accumulating.

You are just making things up on the basis of nothing.

I'm going on the basis of ice-cores (as reported) and observed melting of permafrost today.

You say that the permafrost is going to melt. But its not. And thats soothsaying.

What are you going on when you say it isn't melting?

Then you build on your own soothsaying to make your case. Without any control to say what level of melting is significant.

Permafrost melting has been significant in the past (because it releases CO2 and CH4, which are greenhouse gases)) and there's no reason to think it won't be in the future. It isn't going to stop melting just because you hope it will.

[CapelDodger]

You are certainly welcome to your personal opinion, I only note the vast gap between it, and published science, and correct errors you made in reading it. You are trying to argue the point without reading the article, which I have already mentioned once. This conversation is over.

You quoted from the article thusly :

"
“A second, rarely touched upon question is associated with the apparently limited amount of organic carbon that had been released from permafrost terrain in previous periods of climatic warming such as e.g. the Medieval Warm Period or during the Holocene Climatic Optimum. There appear to be no significant CH4-excursions in ice core records of Antarctica or Greenland during these time periods which otherwise might serve as evidence for a massive release of methane into the atmosphere from degrading permafrost terrains.”


Which is to say, there is no evidence of permafrost melt such as is occurring today during the Holocene Optimum or the Medieval Warm Period. If you think the guy's wrong I can't see why you quoted it. Perhaps you could explain.

[mhaze]

You quoted from the article thusly :

Which is to say, there is no evidence of permafrost melt such as is occurring today during the Holocene Optimum or the Medieval Warm Period. If you think the guy's wrong I can't see why you quoted it. Perhaps you could explain.

I was thinking the article was public access, but there is a good summary at World Climate Report. (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/05/24/cooling-the-permafrost-scare/)

His permafrost model that indicates little melt will occur with the temperatures of today and the likely future. It's based on the pattern over some tens of meters of depth. This then explains why little evidence of permafrost melt is found for the Holocene Optimum - a period of time during which in the Arctic, we have plenty of proxy indications that it was warmer than today.

Therefore, we don't have to worry about permafrost melting and releasing large amounts of bad stuff. This may be just another poorly researched, poorly documented, but highly publicized AGW scare, such as hurricanes, floods, insect invasions, polar bear extinctions, and all the others.

Here is the issue in a nutshell: Holocene Optimum temperatures were warmer, so why didn't the permafrost melt and release large amounts of methane? If we understood that, then if Arctic temperatures today were in a similar range, we should know something about what amounts of methane will be released by them today and tomorrow.

[mhaze]

.....Here is the issue in a nutshell: Holocene Optimum temperatures were warmer, so why didn't the permafrost melt and release large amounts of methane? If we understood that, then if Arctic temperatures today were in a similar range, we should know something about what amounts of methane will be released by them today and tomorrow.14 accessible peer reviewed articles (http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2008/10/15/dont-panic-the-arctic-has-survived-warmer-temperatures-in-the-past/) and blog discussion indicating Arctic warmer in Holocene Optimuum.

[Zytheran]

We cannot let you get away with that particular lie. The temperature is not going up quickly. Its not going up at all. In fact its dropping.

What everywhere?
BS. Prove it.
You're as bad as the rest of them.

[Pixel42]

No thats not going to happen. It will start icing up again, effective almost immediately.
Watch this space (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7786910.stm)

http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm222/Pixel42/_45146192_ice_extent_466.gif

[a_unique_person]

Watch this space (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7786910.stm)

Those models, aren't they ever right?

[Pixel42]

Those models, aren't they ever right?
Whenever deniers question the accuracy of climate models (with some justification) their assumption is always that the uncertainty implies that things will not be as bad as they predict. What they never seem to consider is that things might actually be worse than they predict. But of course that is equally likely.

[DogB]

Those models, aren't they ever right?

Actually that looks like a pretty darn good result other than 07.

Not looking good for CD's ice free summer of 15 though. ;)

[Hindmost]

I was thinking the article was public access, but there is a good summary at World Climate Report. (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/05/24/cooling-the-permafrost-scare/)

His permafrost model that indicates little melt will occur with the temperatures of today and the likely future. It's based on the pattern over some tens of meters of depth. This then explains why little evidence of permafrost melt is found for the Holocene Optimum - a period of time during which in the Arctic, we have plenty of proxy indications that it was warmer than today.

Therefore, we don't have to worry about permafrost melting and releasing large amounts of bad stuff. This may be just another poorly researched, poorly documented, but highly publicized AGW scare, such as hurricanes, floods, insect invasions, polar bear extinctions, and all the others.

Here is the issue in a nutshell: Holocene Optimum temperatures were warmer, so why didn't the permafrost melt and release large amounts of methane? If we understood that, then if Arctic temperatures today were in a similar range, we should know something about what amounts of methane will be released by them today and tomorrow.

Bolding mine in the above post by mhaze.

I have to ask why you have decided to accept a climate model on this point when you have consistently considered them as invalid in the past?

glenn

[mhaze]

Bolding mine in the above post by mhaze.

I have to ask why you have decided to accept a climate model on this point when you have consistently considered them as invalid in the past?

glennHuh? I don't see any relationship between an attempt to use computer/navier stokes/etc to model dynamic and chaotic multiphase sytems and what may be just a linear one dimensional melt representation.

Oh wait - they both use the phrase "model". :)

[GMB]

Watch this space (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7786910.stm)

Right. Nonsense based on soothsaying alone. The projection not the least bit credible.

[GMB]

"Those models, aren't they ever right?"

Never. Because the paradigm upon which they are based WAS wrong, is STILL wrong, and is never going to be right no matter how much stolen money people spend.

They need a better paradigm.

[GMB]

"What are you going on when you say it isn't melting?"

On the fact that it isn't melting. You are saying that its GOING TO melt and then hoisting wrong thinking on top of it.

What about those 7000 year old trees?

Its a local phenomenon and you know that full well. Its not a general thing. And since its local and not general we can be sure its because of some anomaly of wind patterns which altered the level of precipitation in some specific area.

[not_so_new]

The thing I don't understand is this......

What if either side is wrong?

If the global warming side is wrong we still get a new industry (and jobs) based on green fuels that help break the bonds of coal pollution and curtails the largest redistribution of wealth in human history from the West to the Middle East.... You know.... the place where people who fundamental do not like us live. Giving vast sums of money to people who see you as the enemy is a pretty stupid endeavor.

If the deniers are wrong we get..... ?

I am skeptical but not to the point where I refuse to see a counter argument because it does not fit my worldview. I don't believe in Poseidon or the Christian god but I will not claim to have the corner on the religion market, my mind is open to new ideas if evidence is presented.

It seems as if the deniers are completely closed to anything that doesn't fit their worldview, a very human, albeit primitive, reaction.

[not_so_new]

Right. Nonsense based on soothsaying alone. The projection not the least bit credible.


What if.........









...... you know..........











you are wrong?


Or don't you ever make mistakes?

[GMB]

The thing I don't understand is this......

What if either side is wrong?

If the global warming side is wrong we still get a new industry (and jobs) based on green fuels that help break the bonds of coal pollution and curtails the largest redistribution of wealth in human history from the West to the Middle East.... You know.... the place where people who fundamental do not like us live. Giving vast sums of money to people who see you as the enemy is a pretty stupid endeavor.

If the deniers are wrong we get..... ?

I am skeptical but not to the point where I refuse to see a counter argument because it does not fit my worldview. I don't believe in Poseidon or the Christian god but I will not claim to have the corner on the religion market, my mind is open to new ideas if evidence is presented.

It seems as if the deniers are completely closed to anything that doesn't fit their worldview, a very human, albeit primitive, reaction.

You are talking about risk. The global warming side IS wrong and so if you do things my way then no unnecessary costs are imposed.

I'm not wrong. But suppose I am. Which I'm not. But just for arguments sakes lets say that I'm wrong. Which is impossible but lets just say it anyhow.

Well thats simple. Because we have many cheap ways to cool the planet. And no cheap ways to warm it.

When you are talking about costs and risks all the costs and all the risks are on the cooling side and thats just a fact.

As well your talk about this new industry is a well-known idea in economics. Its called THE BROKEN WINDOW FALLACY.

Look it up sometime.

[GMB]

Is one of your arguments that we have to lie to everyone so as to end our dependence for fuel on fascist-Arab regimes?

Is THAT one of your arguments?

Producing more energy to overcome peak oil is its own reward. Shame on you for advocating ON THE AMAZING RANDI'S BLOG that we RIDE THE LYING TIGER.

You think you can jump on that lying tiger and hold him by the ears and ride that tiger. But I tell you the truth. No-one can ride the lying tiger and thats a fools errand.

WE WANT THE TRUTH no matter what. We want to carry on Randi's legacy and function on the basis of truth at all times. Except maybe Sundays but thats voluntary.

[not_so_new]

You are talking about risk. The global warming side IS wrong and so if you do things my way then no unnecessary costs are imposed.

I'm not wrong. But suppose I am. Which I'm not. But just for arguments sakes lets say that I'm wrong. Which is impossible but lets just say it anyhow.

Well thats simple. Because we have many cheap ways to cool the planet. And no cheap ways to warm it.

Really? Care to point a few "cheap" ways?

When you are talking about costs and risks all the costs and all the risks are on the cooling side and thats just a fact.

As well your talk about this new industry is a well-known idea in economics. Its called THE BROKEN WINDOW FALLACY.

Look it up sometime.

Okay.... but.......... what if.........









...... you know..........











you are wrong?


Or don't you ever make mistakes?

[not_so_new]

Is one of your arguments that we have to lie to everyone so as to end our dependence for fuel on fascist-Arab regimes?

Is THAT one of your arguments?

Producing more energy to overcome peak oil is its own reward. Shame on you for advocating ON THE AMAZING RANDI'S BLOG that we RIDE THE LYING TIGER.

You think you can jump on that lying tiger and hold him by the ears and ride that tiger. But I tell you the truth. No-one can ride the lying tiger and thats a fools errand.

WE WANT THE TRUTH no matter what. We want to carry on Randi's legacy and function on the basis of truth at all times. Except maybe Sundays but thats voluntary.


I am not sure I am reading your post correctly but.... you deny that we are sending large sums of money to the Middle East? :jaw-dropp Or you deny they don't like us?

LOL

You deniers are too funny, I never know what you are getting at because of your circular thinking.

So to dispel this particular bit of strawman-ing on your part.... I never said "we should lie" to do anything.

The science could be wrong, I don't claim that science is always correct, but the evidence is pretty solid in the man made global warming camp, no lie there.

BUT

IF that research IS proved to be wrong and we act on that false interpretation of the evidence we STILL get a side benefit of reduced wealth distribution to countries that don't like us.

A lie is a deliberate misinterpretation of the evidence, a mistake is an unintentional misreading of the evidence, they are completely different events. Fred Hoyle was not "lying" when he denied the Big Bang (and created the name), he was just wrong, he misread the evidence.

[CapelDodger]

14 accessible peer reviewed articles (http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2008/10/15/dont-panic-the-arctic-has-survived-warmer-temperatures-in-the-past/) and blog discussion indicating Arctic warmer in Holocene Optimuum.

Considering some of the more recent papers:

Lawson et al 2007
"It is interesting to note that the oldest dates for the earliest ice advance occur at the present margins of the active glaciers at the heads of each fiord. Whether we have now reached the furthest point of retreat of ice during the Holocene is not known, but it could be that with further thinning and recession of ice, additional evidence will be uncovered and extend the distance of ice recession further."

So the ice may have retreated as far as it did in the Holocene Optimum. Further thinning and recession (which we can be pretty confident of, I think) will reveal more.

http://esp.cr.usgs.gov/research/alaska/PDF/KaufmanAger2004QSR.pdf
"At the 16 terrestrial sites where quantitative estimates have been obtained, local HTM temperatures (primarily summer estimates) were on average 1.670.8
C higher than present (approximate average of the 20th century), but the warming was time-transgressive across the western Arctic."

So by "present" they mean the 20thCE average. I don't think anyone disputes that the Holocene Optimum was warmer than that, but it's temperatures now that are melting the permafrost.


This is from 2003
http://acsys.npolar.no/meetings/final/abstracts/posters/Session_1/poster_s1_010.pdf

Regarding Lake Nicolay
"Palaeotemperature reconstruction for Lake Nikolay suggests that during c. 10,300-9200 cal. yr BP TVII were highest (9.9-11.6oC) and up to 2-3oC warmer than nowadays. Other quantitative Holocene climatic reconstructions from Arctic Russia indicate that the early Holocene was the warmest period in modern coastal and island areas. TVII decreased gradually to 8.2oC from c. 9000 to 6500 cal. yr BP. Such deterioration
of local climate was probably connected with an extending rise of sea level in the Laptev Sea region, declining summer insolation, and onset of a colder, more maritime summer climate.

During c. 6500-3300 cal. yr BP climate became unstable, with two short warm oscillations (up to 8.9C) at c. 5600 and 4500-4100 cal. yr BP, and one short cold oscillation (up to 8.2C) at c. 5000 cal. yr BP, that correspond well with pollen-based climate reconstructions for the lake. Thereafter, c. 3300-1400 cal. yr BP, TvII were also relatively high (8.9-9.3oC). The reconstruction suggests that a cooling begun after ca 1400 cal. yr BP, when TVii decreased to 8.5C. The reconstructed TvII
is very close to the present value 8.7C, derived from the modern climate database."

So we were at about the same temperature as the Optimum when the samples were taken (before 2004) and there's been warming since. Take what comfort you can from that.

For Lake Berkut

"The thermal maximum is broadly similar to present-day conditions and consistent with pollen data."

Again, broadly similar to 2004 conditions.


Koshkarova et al 2004 appears to be a broken link, Matul et al 2007 is restricted, and I think we can safely ignore the papers from 1983 and 1998 (things have moved on since then). We can already see where this is going - and hardly surprising from a propaganda site (Climate "Sanity").

[CapelDodger]

Not looking good for CD's ice free summer of 15 though. ;)

Just you wait, pal :mad:.

I've made a bolder prediction (on another thread) which you won't have to wait so long for - a record minimum in Arctic sea-ice extent in 2009.

[CapelDodger]

I was thinking the article was public access, but there is a good summary at World Climate Report. (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/05/24/cooling-the-permafrost-scare/)

A propaganda site is hardly likely to provide a good summary.

His permafrost model that indicates little melt will occur with the temperatures of today and the likely future.

The likely future? And what about the present, when more than a little melting is already going on?

It's based on the pattern over some tens of meters of depth. This then explains why little evidence of permafrost melt is found for the Holocene Optimum - a period of time during which in the Arctic, we have plenty of proxy indications that it was warmer than today.

One proxy indication that the Arctic is warmer currently is the way permafrost is melting. There's apparently little evidence that happened in the Holocene Optimum.

Here is the issue in a nutshell: Holocene Optimum temperatures were warmer, so why didn't the permafrost melt and release large amounts of methane? If we understood that, then if Arctic temperatures today were in a similar range, we should know something about what amounts of methane will be released by them today and tomorrow.

Here's a simple explanation : Holocene Optimum temperatures weren't higher than current temperatures. That explains why permafrost is melting now but didn't then. It doesn't tell us how much of it will melt nor how quickly, but more data is coming in on that.

[GMB]

I am not sure I am reading your post correctly but.... you deny that we are sending large sums of money to the Middle East? :jaw-dropp Or you deny they don't like us?



The fault is all your own. And I'm supposing it comes down to the need for remedial reading education. Lying does not help us overcome our dependence on Middle Eastern oil. Production does. Production of synthetics. Using nuclear energy, virtually all hydro-carbon resources can be liquified to diesel equivalent. This would overcome our dependence on Arab-fascist regimes. Of course more exploration would be helpful. But non-synthetics can only take you so far. The environmentalist movement is not going to help us reduce our dependence on fascists. Rather they ARE fascists. And they will increase our dependence on current oil suppliers.

So PRODUCTION reduces dependence.

LYING increases dependence.

[Hindmost]

Huh? I don't see any relationship between an attempt to use computer/navier stokes/etc to model dynamic and chaotic multiphase sytems and what may be just a linear one dimensional melt representation.

Oh wait - they both use the phrase "model". :)

Didn't answer the question...but what the hey...some models are acceptable--only if they fit your position.

glenn

[Pipirr]

Didn't answer the question...but what the hey...some models are acceptable--only if they fit your position.

glenn

See also:

Proxies are awesome! They are how we know the Holocene optimum was warmer than now. Except when proxies show that now was warmer than the Holocene optimum. And/or if Mann was involved. In which case they suck ass.

The surface temperature networks are useless, because of heat island effects. Except for right now, as they show that it hasn't been hotter than 1998, and therefore show that global warming has stopped. So they are in fact working pretty well. For now.

There isn't any such thing as a global average temperature. Or at least there wasn't any such thing a year or so ago. Now that global warming has stopped, according to average global temperatures, then there is an average global temperature.

It all makes perfect sense.

[Hindmost]

See also:

Proxies are awesome! They are how we know the Holocene optimum was warmer than now. Except when proxies show that now was warmer than the Holocene optimum. And/or if Mann was involved. In which case they suck ass.

The surface temperature networks are useless, because of heat island effects. Except for right now, as they show that it hasn't been hotter than 1998, and therefore show that global warming has stopped. So they are in fact working pretty well. For now.

There isn't any such thing as a global average temperature. Or at least there wasn't any such thing a year or so ago. Now that global warming has stopped, according to average global temperatures, then there is an average global temperature.

It all makes perfect sense.

And it snowed in New Orleans and Las Vegas...

glenn

[mhaze]

Didn't answer the question...but what the hey...some models are acceptable--only if they fit your position.

glennYes, certainly.

That some models are acceptable may empirically proven by sampling a sufficient subset of a large population of models and subject the resulting subset to hypothesis verification. (EG, google images "hot models").

[not_so_new]

The fault is all your own. And I'm supposing it comes down to the need for remedial reading education. Lying does not help us overcome our dependence on Middle Eastern oil. Production does. Production of synthetics. Using nuclear energy, virtually all hydro-carbon resources can be liquified to diesel equivalent. This would overcome our dependence on Arab-fascist regimes. Of course more exploration would be helpful. But non-synthetics can only take you so far. The environmentalist movement is not going to help us reduce our dependence on fascists. Rather they ARE fascists. And they will increase our dependence on current oil suppliers.

So PRODUCTION reduces dependence.

LYING increases dependence.


You are saying "let's just keep doing what we have always done and we will get different results... Well, we need more oil exploration (ignoring the fact that these are in areas with decreasingly smaller yields) but we shouldn't change anything about consumption... just produce more of a finite product."

Why not try attacking the REAL problem instead, the problem of how we generate energy?

It just baffles me that humans can be so short sighted.

I don't care if XYZ company makes 34 billion dollars in yearly profit and Exxon goes out of business. If someone comes up with new technology that supplants what we are doing now we KNOW that someone is going to make money off of it, what's the problem?

I get into my vehicle and go to the store, I am happy. I plug in my laptop, I get to the Internet, I am happy. If the energy that makes these things possible is generated in the West, creates new high tech jobs, produces less pollution, creates a huge revenue stream from export and just happens to have less global warming impact I don't see a problem.

If you take away any of these positives the others are still positive.

I DON'T CARE if you believe global warning is true or not. There are 1000 and 1 reasons to develop new energy technologies.

Why be a Luddite and halt technological progress based on a belief system?

[GMB]

"You are saying "let's just keep doing what we have always done and we will get different results... "

NO I DID NOT SAY THAT. I SAID WE MUST CHANGE OUR WAYS.

"Well, we need more oil exploration (ignoring the fact that these are in areas with decreasingly smaller yields)...."

NO I MOST CERTAINLY DID NOT IGNORE THAT.

" but we shouldn't change anything about consumption... just produce more of a finite product."

I SAID TO PRODUCE MORE OF SYNTHETICS THAT AREN'T INHERENTLY SCARCE. SO NO YOU ARE WRONG AGAIN.

"Why not try attacking the REAL problem instead, the problem of how we generate energy?"

THATS PRECISELY WHAT I ADVOCATED.

"It just baffles me that humans can be so short sighted."

YOU ARE JUST LYING MATE. NOT SO MUCH RIDING THE LYING TIGER BUT TRYING TO OUTRUN HIM.

"I don't care if XYZ company makes 34 billion dollars in yearly profit and Exxon goes out of business. If someone comes up with new technology that supplants what we are doing now we KNOW that someone is going to make money off of it, what's the problem? "

There is no problem. Thats just competition.


"I get into my vehicle and go to the store, I am happy. I plug in my laptop, I get to the Internet, I am happy. If the energy that makes these things possible is generated in the West, creates new high tech jobs, produces less pollution, creates a huge revenue stream from export and just happens to have less global warming impact I don't see a problem."

There is no problem with nuclear and nuclear used to produce cheap synthetic diesel.

"If you take away any of these positives the others are still positive.

I DON'T CARE if you believe global warning is true or not. There are 1000 and 1 reasons to develop new energy technologies."

Grow up and stop acting like a baby. Its not up to you. Its not about your whims. Sort yourself out. Get a real job. Stop bludging off your neighbours.

"Why be a Luddite and halt technological progress based on a belief system"

I wasn't doing that. You are just lying again.

[Pixel42]

I've made a bolder prediction (on another thread) which you won't have to wait so long for - a record minimum in Arctic sea-ice extent in 2009.
This prompted me to check the Arctic Ice Extent graph for the first time in several weeks:

http://www-nsidc.colorado.edu/arcticseaicenews/

:eek:

[CapelDodger]

This prompted me to check the Arctic Ice Extent graph for the first time in several weeks:

http://www-nsidc.colorado.edu/arcticseaicenews/

:eek:

It does look odd, doesn't it? Probably a weather-related blip.

I'm off to deepest England (far from the InterWebNet) for a few days with family. Y'all out there enjoy the festivities.

[TrueSceptic]

I'm not wrong. But suppose I am. Which I'm not. But just for arguments sakes lets say that I'm wrong. Which is impossible but lets just say it anyhow.

Let no one be in any doubt that the above is not a statement made by a sceptic or critical thinker. It is the sort of statement made by religious fanatics and totalitarian leaders.

[TrueSceptic]

A lie is a deliberate misinterpretation of the evidence, a mistake is an unintentional misreading of the evidence, they are completely different events. Fred Hoyle was not "lying" when he denied the Big Bang (and created the name), he was just wrong, he misread the evidence.
Good point. Note that we have seen little but lies from the denialists, here and elsewhere. Few of them can be accused of being merely mistaken.

[TrueSceptic]

It does look odd, doesn't it? Probably a weather-related blip.

I'm off to deepest England (far from the InterWebNet) for a few days with family. Y'all out there enjoy the festivities.
That is a strange alteration of the trend, isn't it?

A Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you, CD, and to everyone else. :D

[Zytheran]

...
I'm not wrong. But suppose I am. Which I'm not. But just for arguments sakes lets say that I'm wrong. Which is impossible but lets just say it anyhow.
...


K
N
O
B
-
H
E
A
D

Do you ever consider how you come across to other people?
Are you trying to:
A) Inform people?
B) Piss people off?
or
C) Amuse yourself?

Communication is a two-way thing, you actually need people willing to read what you write otherwise it's all a bit pointless, isn't it?

[BenBurch]

These right-wing parrots all say the same things, don't they?

[TrueSceptic]

K
N
O
B
-
H
E
A
D

Do you ever consider how you come across to other people?
Are you trying to:
A) Inform people?
B) Piss people off?
or
C) Amuse yourself?

Communication is a two-way thing, you actually need people willing to read what you write otherwise it's all a bit pointless, isn't it?
Oh, he knows alright. He's proud of it; he knows he's right and anyone who disagrees is an idiot or a liar. See The Wisdom of GMB (http://notahedgehog.wordpress.com/2008/08/26/speaking-of-irony/).

[TrueSceptic]

These right-wing parrots all say the same things, don't they?
Not fair to parrots: the parrot is a bird known for its intelligence.

[GreyICE]

It occurs to me that GMB is exactly one letter inversion off GWB, and we might be seeing a performance art piece along the lines of the one another poster in the politics forum regularly gave.

If so, this one is much ruder and in much poorer taste (the other poster tended towards subtle satire).

[not_so_new]

I'm not wrong. But suppose I am. Which I'm not. But just for arguments sakes lets say that I'm wrong. Which is impossible but lets just say it anyhow.
Let no one be in any doubt that the above is not a statement made by a sceptic or critical thinker. It is the sort of statement made by religious fanatics and totalitarian leaders.

Yes, hard to have a helpful discussion with someone who refuses to use reasonable communication and isn't even willing to doubt their own beliefs.

Critical thinking is most important when you already believe something to be true. It's very easy to be skeptical of an idea you are against, it is very difficult to be skeptical of something you agree with. This is the true mark of a good skeptic.... something that GMB fails at miserably.

As I get older and hopefully wiser I tend to steer clear of these types of people. I try to not make black and white statements. I try to see other points of view. Fanatics rarely do any of the above, it's all attack attack attack.

As Billy Joel once said....

Now with the wisdom of years
I try to reason things out
And the only people I fear
are those who never have doubts
Save us all from arrogant men,
and all the causes they're for
I won't be righteous again
I'm not that sure anymore

Billy Joel

[BenBurch]

NSN, nobody here wants AGW to be true, so nobody here has any reason whatsoever to conduct self-deception about it. But it is the hallmark of Conspiracy cranks that they always accuse their critics of being "in on it" or "paid shills" or "in the tank" for the opposition (which almost universally is the side of reality.)

[not_so_new]

NSN, nobody here wants AGW to be true, so nobody here has any reason whatsoever to conduct self-deception about it. But it is the hallmark of Conspiracy cranks that they always accuse their critics of being "in on it" or "paid shills" or "in the tank" for the opposition (which almost universally is the side of reality.)

Hey Ben

Yeah, I know what's going on... I am not a spring chicken, this isn't my first rodeo.

;)

That said. You may not want AGW to be true but now that you have invested something in it, research time, time spent arguing the finer points of the theory, etc, in a way you DO want it to be true. I know because that is how I personally see it. I have to fight to see the other side because I feel I have a personal investment in the subject.

Here is the deal as I see it. The science is pretty clear on the matter of AGW, for now that is the camp I am in and until evidence is presented counter to that I am going to be staying there firmly.

That said, I think it is wrong to forget that science is not above mistakes. I don't claim that AGW is 100% accurate, scientists are figuring a lot of this out as they go. I am very confident in AGW but I am not positive because that is just as stubborn a stance as the deniers take.

This is the key to me..... to get everyone on the same page, "believers" like myself and "deniers" like MHaze and GMB have to get over the fact that the science is right or wrong. There are an amazing plethora of positives that can come out of green technologies regardless of the validity of the science.

We "believers" can get so much more done if we start the discussion on all these other positives. We can agree to disagree on AGW with others but we can't get anything done until we unite on some common goals.

We don't have a common goal on AGW with MHaze or GMB and they are always going to have their heads in the sand on this issue (as AMAZINGLY frustrating as that is).

But it's hard for anyone to argue for the redistribution of wealth to the Middle East. It's hard to argue against more high tech jobs here in the West. It's hard to argue against cleaner air and water for our children. It is hard to argue for "clean coal" when the real truth is known about it. It's hard to argue against the creation of technologies that can create huge revenue streams from export.

There IS common ground to be found between the opposing camps that gets both sides what they want, we get clean air and less green house gas, they get large economic gains (something I am also greatly interested in myself).

THAT is how we start moving forward, trying to change die hard, head in the sand deniers like mhaze and GMB is tilting windmills and holding up potentially progress.

Sorry for the rant, this is a subject I am pretty passionate about.

[mhaze]

There are an amazing plethora of positives that can come out of green technologies regardless of the validity of the science.

We "believers" can get so much more done if we start the discussion on all these other positives. We can agree to disagree on AGW with others but we can't get anything done until we unite on some common goals.

We don't have a common goal on AGW with MHaze or GMB and they are always going to have their heads in the sand on this issue (as AMAZINGLY frustrating as that is).

But it's hard for anyone to argue for the redistribution of wealth to the Middle East. It's hard to argue against more high tech jobs here in the West. It's hard to argue against cleaner air and water for our children. It is hard to argue for "clean coal" when the real truth is known about it. It's hard to argue against the creation of technologies that can create huge revenue streams from export.

There IS common ground to be found between the opposing camps that gets both sides what they want, we get clean air and less green house gas, they get large economic gains (something I am also greatly interested in myself).

THAT is how we start moving forward, trying to change die hard, head in the sand deniers....It's hard to argue against the creation of technologies that can create huge revenue streams from export.
Show us that you have a fractional clue as to what you are talking about. Your discussion seems really politicial, not scientific, likely not grounded in business or engineering cost analysis. Do you know anything substantial about "green technologies"?

However, this thread is for "believers" - Warmers - to tell us all when the Dire Tipping Points and Alarming Runaway Climate is going to Happen. Your naive beliefs about AGW are quite irrelevant to this, the OP of this thread.

It would be possible to believe in AGW but not "runaway climates" or to be a skeptic and believe that runaways could occur.

[not_so_new]

It's hard to argue against the creation of technologies that can create huge revenue streams from export.
Show us that you have a fractional clue as to what you are talking about. Your discussion seems really politicial, not scientific, likely not grounded in business or engineering cost analysis. Do you know anything substantial about "green technologies"?

However, this thread is for "believers" - Warmers - to tell us all when the Dire Tipping Points and Alarming Runaway Climate is going to Happen. Your naive beliefs about AGW are quite irrelevant to this, the OP of this thread.

It would be possible to believe in AGW but not "runaway climates" or to be a skeptic and believe that runaways could occur.

As I said above, as I get older and hopefully wiser I tend to steer clear of people like you mhaze.

I try to not make black and white statements. I try to see other points of view. I try to find common ground. Fanatics such as yourself rarely do any of the above, it's all attack attack attack.

You want to call this a scientific debate but I see you misrepresenting the science and not really listening to the other side. There is no debate with you, it's all attack attack attack. I don't see any point in discussing it with you because there is no discussion, it's just the same old same old.

"And the only people I fear are those who never have doubts. Save us all from arrogant men, and all the causes they're for."

Mhaze, do you ever stop to think that maybe you are wrong, or do you never have any doubts about your views?

[mhaze]

As I said above, as I get older and hopefully wiser I tend to steer clear of people like you mhaze. ....Mhaze, do you ever stop to think that maybe you are wrong, or do you never have any doubts about your views?It's hard to argue against the creation of technologies that can create huge revenue streams from export.
Do you know anything substantial about "green technologies"?

Are you g0ing to support your claims?

[not_so_new]

It's hard to argue against the creation of technologies that can create huge revenue streams from export.
Do you know anything substantial about "green technologies"?

Are you g0ing to support your claims?

Sure....

China has a massive problem with growth and pollution from energy consumption as we all know.

Westinghouse made a whole lot of money from steam turbines in the 70's and 80's from the design and implementation of nuclear energy technology.

A friend of mine works for Westinghouse now as a steam turbine engineer, he leads a project team that installs and services turbines all around the world in conjunction with Westinghouse reactors.

His team has been gearing up for a large number of turbine installs in China which is being driven by the government there finally waking up to the problems of pollution from their coal fired plants.

The thing is..... the technology that Westinghouse is installing is STILL form the 70's and 80's. My friend tells me some stories about how old the technology is, stories like reactors going off line because CPU's in mother boards become lose and the fix is to send him around the world with a glue gun because the motherboard nor the CPU has been in porduction for 15 years or more (this not a joke).

There is a HUGE market for updated technologies in reactor / steam generation control technologies. Based on the 10 year plan from Westinghouse there is going to be a very large amount of export work hence the increase in staffing.

This is just one area of "export" on the horizon, there are others but I don't have time right now to go into detail.

Are you going to answer my question.... Mhaze, do you ever stop to think that maybe you are wrong, or do you never have any doubts about your views?

[mhaze]

Sure....

China has a massive problem with growth and pollution from energy consumption as we all know.

Westinghouse made a whole lot of money from steam turbines in the 70's and 80's from the design and implementation of nuclear energy technology.

A friend of mine works for Westinghouse now as a steam turbine engineer, he leads a project team that installs and services turbines all around the world in conjunction with Westinghouse reactors....There is a HUGE market for updated technologies in reactor / steam generation control technologies. Based on the 10 year plan from Westinghouse there is going to be a very large amount of export work hence the increase in staffing......Except that W. was bought by British 1999 and is now owned by Toshiha. Toshiba is supplying reactors to the US, first two go to South Texas Nuclear.

Japan will make money servicing China. And the US. Flat world, yes.

Now, are you going to support your claim?

[Hindmost]

Except that W. was bought by British 1999 and is now owned by Toshiha. Toshiba is supplying reactors to the US, first two go to South Texas Nuclear.

Japan will make money servicing China. And the US. Flat world, yes.

Now, are you going to support your claim?

Only Westinghouse nuclear was bought by BNFL. It was then sold to Toshiba and Shaw group. The steam turbine business was divested by CBS corp. previously and was sold to Siemens.

glenn

[GMB]

Fred Hoyle wasn't wrong when he thought that the big bang was not how things were. The big bang model is a more than normally silly model. What the deal was with Fred Hoyle is that the other models maths was better than his own in terms of the data they had at the time.

The Big Bang was a pretty silly idea then and it just gets sillier as time goes on.

[GMB]

NSN, nobody here wants AGW to be true, so nobody here has any reason whatsoever to conduct self-deception about it. But it is the hallmark of Conspiracy cranks that they always accuse their critics of being "in on it" or "paid shills" or "in the tank" for the opposition (which almost universally is the side of reality.)

Its a hallmark of reality that you want to follow the money. This is a baseless fraud. Hence its only natural to try and figure out who makes a living out of it. Research grant whoredom plays a part. And the voodoo of a substitute religion clearly plays a part also.

You don't have any evidence to believe. But you believe just the same. Substitute religion. Or perhaps brain damage or moral weakness. But in any case your reasons to believe are not there.

[not_so_new]

Only Westinghouse nuclear was bought by BNFL. It was then sold to Toshiba and Shaw group. The steam turbine business was divested by CBS corp. previously and was sold to Siemens.

glenn

Exactly. Siemans U.S.A. is in control of the former Westinghouse steam turbine business as far as I know (and unlike mhaze I admit freely to the possibility I am wrong here).

There is a huge market on the steam turbine side of the technology and there is a lot of improvements to be made.

I believe the physical turbines come from Siemens Germany (and I will take the time to point out in my post I CLEARLY said the words "export" in relation to "the West" not just America) but much of the labor force for these installs world wide installs looks to be coming from Westinghouse / Siemens U.S.A. if the hiring they are doing over here and the info I have is to be believed.

Another thing mhaze..... why does everything have to be a fight? I am a good guy, I am not looking to "do battle." I am sure you are a good person, or you think of yourself as such... why the attack? Why can't we just talk like real humans with out having to throw barbs?

It just makes no sense to me.

Anyway.... back to your scheuled mhaz / GMB put downs and name calling I guess.

[not_so_new]

Fred Hoyle wasn't wrong when he thought that the big bang was not how things were. The big bang model is a more than normally silly model. What the deal was with Fred Hoyle is that the other models maths was better than his own in terms of the data they had at the time.

The Big Bang was a pretty silly idea then and it just gets sillier as time goes on.

Fair enough... I completely believe you.










Oh wait, one more thing before I sign up..... care to show me YOUR math on the beginnings of the universe?

[not_so_new]

Except that W. was bought by British 1999 and is now owned by Toshiha. Toshiba is supplying reactors to the US, first two go to South Texas Nuclear.

Japan will make money servicing China. And the US. Flat world, yes.

Now, are you going to support your claim?

This is off my point that you were referring to but I think this is worthy of discussion.

Even with the tremendous growth in China, Japan still has a vested interest in sustaining a long term relationship with the West. More importantly they don't actively hate us and Japan is a stable nation.

The Middle East on the other hand is a different kettle of fish. They are a herding society practicing stone age myths that has been catapulted into some of the greatest wealth in human history intermixed with great poverty. If that isn't a recipe for trouble I don't know what is.

Even the wealthiest in the Middle East play both sides of the alley, they have to make believe that they like the West while taking our money on one hand but they have to side with the common people in condemning the West on the other. There is ample evidence that even the Saudi royal family has a great disdain for the West even after the wealth they have gained from us.

In their hart of harts most people in the Middle East have not gotten over the cultural divide between us... then add the Palestinian / Israeli issue....

The point is, I don't like giving money to Japan but I don't worry about my physical safety in doing so.

Giving money to the Middle East is like paying someone to drive a truck bomb into your front yard. Given the choice between the two I would GLADLY give my money to Japan over the Saudi royal family or anyone else in the region.

Set aside who is making the money on weening us off fossil fuels, giving money to ANYONE other than people in the Middle East (and possibly Russia) to me is strong enough reason alone to develop alternate energy sources.

[Geckko]

IF that research IS proved to be wrong and we act on that false interpretation of the evidence we STILL get a side benefit of reduced wealth distribution to countries that don't like us.

What you will get is less wealth for you less wealth for them.

You like the idea of retarding someone else's welfare even at the expense of your own?

[not_so_new]

What you will get is less wealth for you less wealth for them.

You like the idea of retarding someone else's welfare even at the expense of your own?

See my post directly above yours for my long answer.

The short answer is no, I don't like the idea of retarding someone else's welfare at the expense of my own or at the betterment of it either. I don't mind sharing, in the end that tends to make more wealth for all parties.

I DO however like the idea of retarding the financial means by which another group can use to cause me and the people I love physical harm.... which by the way, was my point in the line you took from my post.

IF I retard my own financial welfare for my safety so be it, I am willing to pay that price, I just happen to disagree that my financial welfare is at stake. Money will always be spent on energy, it might be redirected away from Exxon and to a new company called XYX, I don't care about that as long as my money doesn't ultimately go to people that wish to do me harm.

[Geckko]

INteresting perspective. Can't say I follow the same line myself.

[mhaze]

A propaganda site is hardly likely to provide a good summary.....Here's a simple explanation : Holocene Optimum temperatures weren't higher than current temperatures. That explains why permafrost is melting now but didn't then. It doesn't tell us how much of it will melt nor how quickly, but more data is coming in on that.After you are through labeling various sites as propaganda, justifying which articles you won't read for other reasons, misinterpreting cause and effect or lack of in things I wrote....you might want to note that I already said you are certainly entitled to your opionion.

But even Wikipedia disagrees with you.:)

[mhaze]

This is off my point that you were referring to but I think this is worthy of discussion.

Even with the tremendous growth in China, Japan still has a vested interest in sustaining a long term relationship with the West. More importantly they don't actively hate us and Japan is a stable nation.

The Middle East on the other hand is a different kettle of fish. They are a herding society practicing stone age myths that has been catapulted into some of the greatest wealth in human history intermixed with great poverty. If that isn't a recipe for trouble I don't know what is.

Even the wealthiest in the Middle East play both sides of the alley, they have to make believe that they like the West while taking our money on one hand but they have to side with the common people in condemning the West on the other. There is ample evidence that even the Saudi royal family has a great disdain for the West even after the wealth they have gained from us.

In their hart of harts most people in the Middle East have not gotten over the cultural divide between us... then add the Palestinian / Israeli issue....

The point is, I don't like giving money to Japan but I don't worry about my physical safety in doing so.

Giving money to the Middle East is like paying someone to drive a truck bomb into your front yard. Given the choice between the two I would GLADLY give my money to Japan over the Saudi royal family or anyone else in the region.

Set aside who is making the money on weening us off fossil fuels, giving money to ANYONE other than people in the Middle East (and possibly Russia) to me is strong enough reason alone to develop alternate energy sources.

Yes, full bloom concerning your feelings about politics, economics, your likes and dislikes, and the good and bad guys and countries of the world. Even farther removed from rational scientific discussion than your little rant about which posters on this forum you liked and dislike.

Now back to my prior comment.


Not that I am dismissing your basket of feelings.
Not that I'm laughing at your invitation for us to hold hands in a circle around your basket.
Not that I'm denying the importance of your beliefs to you that everyone should stand up and state their feelings about climate.
Not that I don't respect your pious ideas about goodliness of green and the green way to world peace.

But your naive beliefs about AGW are quite irrelevant to the OP of this thread. This thread is for "believers" - Warmers - to tell us all when the Dire Tipping Points and Alarming Runaway Climate is going to Happen. And for skeptics to examine these arguments and poke holes in them if holes exist.

Shouldn't we try to get it right whether the planet is in an Alarming Runaway Climate? You are derailing that subject, one of the sacred core beliefs of Warmers. I have linked to about 20 technical, peer reviewed articles on this subject in this thread supporting my opinions on the subject. Others have similarly referenced the literature.

I would think you would be interested in discussing it...

By the way...one other comment about one of your confused justifications of committee decision making on (science, politics, feelings, economics). What is done in argumentation and debate is to take one point of view, and do your best at holding it against others, who take the opposite point of view.

Is a light coming on now?

[BenBurch]

Fred Hoyle wasn't wrong when he thought that the big bang was not how things were. The big bang model is a more than normally silly model. What the deal was with Fred Hoyle is that the other models maths was better than his own in terms of the data they had at the time.

The Big Bang was a pretty silly idea then and it just gets sillier as time goes on.

WTF?

No wonder you got banned.

[CapelDodger]

That is a strange alteration of the trend, isn't it?

That odd plateau has ended and ice-extent now seems to be tracking 2007-2008 - perhaps a little too closely? I hope last year's figures haven't been loaded up accidentally :).

[CapelDodger]

Critical thinking is most important when you already believe something to be true. It's very easy to be skeptical of an idea you are against, it is very difficult to be skeptical of something you agree with. This is the true mark of a good skeptic....

Exactly my way of thinking. Evidence that appears to confirm one's current opinion should, if anything, be examined more carefully than apparently contradictory evidence. To do otherwise is to court error - and I do sincerely hate being wrong.

... something that GMB fails at miserably.

GMB may have been ironic earlier in this thread, but more likely (IMO) has fallen victim to solipsism.

[CapelDodger]

After you are through labeling various sites as propaganda, justifying which articles you won't read for other reasons, misinterpreting cause and effect or lack of in things I wrote....

Do what now :confused:?

I haven't labelled Climate Sanity a propaganda site without reading a goodly wedge of it. Rather than get into that directly I went to some of the "14 articles" (shades of Woodrow Wilson?) that supposedly support the view that the Arctic was warmer in the Holocene Optimum than it is today. They don't. One of them's from 25 years ago, which demonstrates some pretty desperate fishing - as one would expect from a propaganda site.

you might want to note that I already said you are certainly entitled to your opionion.

I really don't feel the need for your permission.

But even Wikipedia disagrees with you.:)

Which only lends support to my case.

[CapelDodger]

By the way...one other comment about one of your confused justifications of committee decision making on (science, politics, feelings, economics). What is done in argumentation and debate is to take one point of view, and do your best at holding it against others, who take the opposite point of view.

Is a light coming on now?

What you describe is the Debating Society principle of argument, not the scientific one. The scientific principle is better described by thesis-antithesis-synthesis. Debating Societies are where lawyers and politicians cut their teeth.

[TrueSceptic]

GMB may have been ironic earlier in this thread, but more likely (IMO) has fallen victim to solipsism.
You decide. See Speaking of irony (http://notahedgehog.wordpress.com/2008/08/26/speaking-of-irony/#comment-2107).

[CapelDodger]

You decide. See Speaking of irony (http://notahedgehog.wordpress.com/2008/08/26/speaking-of-irony/#comment-2107).

GMB is an odd bird, isn't he? In comparison the usual suspects are positively mainstream.

Speaking of which, I saw a flock of odd birds this morning; turns out they were fieldfares, feeding in an abandoned orchard because the mere they normally feed in was frozen over. It's been bloody cold in East Anglia these last couple of days.

[TrueSceptic]

GMB is an odd bird, isn't he? In comparison the usual suspects are positively mainstream.

Not really much different to most denialists inhabiting the Marohasy Bog. He's just more "honest" (offensive).


Speaking of which, I saw a flock of odd birds this morning; turns out they were fieldfares, feeding in an abandoned orchard because the mere they normally feed in was frozen over. It's been bloody cold in East Anglia these last couple of days.
Yes, weird temps. Mild Christmas Eve, then cold since then, both here (Northampton) and in Lincolnshire (we were there Fri-Sat).

[BenBurch]

We had some bloody cold and a lot of snow... We were down to -20 C and then suddenly it got warm and everything melted, and now we reached 16 C today which is a record for this date, with thunderstorms. We have flooding in some parts of the area, and were under a tornado warming part of this afternoon. Now tonight its dropping to -2 C and high winds.

Weather is not climate, and that's a good thing.

[CapelDodger]

Yes, weird temps. Mild Christmas Eve, then cold since then, both here (Northampton) and in Lincolnshire (we were there Fri-Sat).

We were actually sat outside the pub for a while on Christmas Eve, then the wind shifted to the East. As you say, Ben, it's just weather. The Arctic is relatively warm so somewhere else has to be relatively cold.

[TrueSceptic]

That odd plateau has ended and ice-extent now seems to be tracking 2007-2008 - perhaps a little too closely? I hope last year's figures haven't been loaded up accidentally :).
Very odd shape. :)

[TrueSceptic]

We had some bloody cold and a lot of snow... We were down to -20 C and then suddenly it got warm and everything melted, and now we reached 16 C today which is a record for this date, with thunderstorms. We have flooding in some parts of the area, and were under a tornado warming part of this afternoon. Now tonight its dropping to -2 C and high winds.

Weather is not climate, and that's a good thing.
-20 to +16 to -2 in a few days? Where are you Ben?

[BenBurch]

-20 to +16 to -2 in a few days? Where are you Ben?

Chicago.

[CapelDodger]

Chicago.

Right in the mixing zone then.

[Zytheran]

There is no tipping point. This is a baseless leftist lie. The whole global warming movement is transparently fraudulent. That there are a bunch of people here who have fallen for this jive, without any evidence whatsoever, is a tip-off that the skeptical movement has lost its way.

Oh dear...
Why did you say there is no tipping point?
Does this mean than you think the climate gradualy changes from one stable system to another?
...and completely disregard chaos theory and the mathematics of strange atractors etc.?
It would help if you supplied some links to overturn what science has learnt about complex systems.
Climate is a very complex system of multiple positive and negative feedbacks and claiming that we can't jump from one state to another via a rapid change rather than a gradual change is pretty brave...to put it politely.

[BenBurch]

Right in the mixing zone then.

If you don't like Chicago weather, all you need to do is wait a few hours; it will change.

[TrueSceptic]

If you don't like Chicago weather, all you need to do is wait a few hours; it will change.
I'd heard it was changeable but nothing like that! :D

[Hindmost]

If you don't like Chicago weather, all you need to do is wait a few hours; it will change.


heard the same thing in Idaho, New Orleans, Mass, CT, Korea, Tx, NC....etc..

glenn:boxedin:

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by mhaze http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4294411#post4294411)
By the way...one other comment about one of your confused justifications of committee decision making on (science, politics, feelings, economics). What is done in argumentation and debate is to take one point of view, and do your best at holding it against others, who take the opposite point of view.

Is a light coming on now?


What you describe is the Debating Society principle of argument, not the scientific one. The scientific principle is better described by thesis-antithesis-synthesis. Debating Societies are where lawyers and politicians cut their teeth.

What I describe is your and other Warmer's ridiculous squirming around in this thread, when asked simply to show OP evidence of the tipping points and runaway climate conditions that you believe in wholeheartedly.

Let's see them.

[CapelDodger]

What I describe is your and other Warmer's ridiculous squirming around in this thread, when asked simply to show OP evidence of the tipping points and runaway climate conditions that you believe in wholeheartedly.


As I have repeated, the melting of permafrost represents a tipping-point. It is a self-reinforcing process which is going to run for a very long time.

[mhaze]

As I have repeated, the melting of permafrost represents a tipping-point. It is a self-reinforcing process which is going to run for a very long time.

You've not done well in supporting that. Have another try! It's back to a non nebulous query formulation!

Really? So you can't say, there are


N number of tons of stinking goo that used to be permafrost at latitude 71
which at current temperatures will release X1 MegaBiggie Tons of BadStuff
which in turn will affect global climate by Y1 degrees
causing a progressive northern expansion of the Permafrost Melt Zone by Z1 miles to latitude 71+++
bringing another X2 tons BadStuff into play
GOTO 1

Recursive Doom?

I want to know all about this Doom. Can't we calulateify it? Like, get some of those Units, you know, applied. We gots Units for temperature, length, weight. Lots of them. Units for money. Like, this dude over here just stole $50B of peoples' money. Units tell us that's 33 tandem dump trucks of $100 bills.

Units are Good Things. Even though runaways and tipping points are always trying to run away from precise definition, let's pin them down like squirmy frogs on the table and dissect them.

[BenBurch]

Some numbers here; http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080903134309.htm

[mhaze]

Some numbers here; http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080903134309.htm

Ben, thank you. I'm not sure why I've had to ask this simple question related to the OP over and over. Evidence to support the tipping point fantasy should be part of the Warmer Talking Points, but apparently isn't.

From your article:How fast the permafrost would release its carbon is a hugely important question.

Schuur said the burning of fossil fuels contributes about 8.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide each year. Deforestation of the tropical forests and replacement of the forest with pasture or other agriculture is thought to add about 1.5 billion tons per year. How much permafrost will add will depend on how fast it thaws, but Schuur said his research indicates the figure could approach .8-1.1 billion tons per year in the future if permafrost continues to thaw.
If-if-if-if and if, the article says permafrost could add about 12% to emissions to the atmosphere. I presume they are basing their numbers on a continuation of the Arctic warming trend that has occurred since 1980 or so. A perspective: in 1997 Indonesian peat fires may have released three times as much CO2 as this projected permafrost issue.


Is this "Alarming?"
Does 12% increase in emissions cause a "Tipping point?"
Why and how?

Capeldodger's opinion:

As I have repeated, the melting of permafrost represents a tipping-point. It is a self-reinforcing process which is going to run for a very long time.

Mhaze opinion.

12% increase in per year emissions over current levels is insufficient to cause any "Self reinforcing process". Permafrost melting can not cause a "Tipping Point".
Use the number from Ben's article and round to 1 gigaton per year. Use a 10 year in atmosphere residence time for CO2, to derive a "new equilibrium CO2" condition. That will be approximately 10 gigaton above the predicted condition where no permafrost melt problem was conceptualized.

Atmospheric CO2 is 3 teratons. The addition of 8 gton is an increase of 8/3000 or a 0.26% increase in CO2 from 384 ppm to a whopping 384.9984 ppm. Round to 1ppm increase equilibrium condition.

Using Warmer theory numbers, 2x CO2 = 3C the equilibrium temperature increase due to continuous permafrost melt is equal to 1/280*3C = 0.01C and the resulting northward creep of melt for that decadal increment is 0.01*300 miles or 3 miles. Adding 3 miles per decade to the permafrost melt zone does not crease a positive feedback or runaway climatic condition.
Caveat: The above calculations presume Warmer Alarmist theory is correct (It isn't) and only carries the calculations out for fun, using Alarmist numbers. Science indicating Warmer Alarmist Permafrost Tipping Point theories are wrong previously presented: Delisle, G. 2007. Near-surface permafrost degradation: How severe during the 21st century? Geophysical Research Letters, 34, L09503, doi:10.1029/2007GL029323.
Discussion of Delisle (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/in...mafrost-scare/) at Worldclimatereport.com.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum
14 accessible peer reviewed articles (http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2008/10/15/dont-panic-the-arctic-has-survived-warmer-temperatures-in-the-past) Arctic warmer in Holocene Optimuum.
Permafrost melt - not Tipping Point Climate Change you can believe in.

Let's have more supposed tipping points, runaway climates!

Got em? Bring 'em on!

[BenBurch]

If we were very close to the bar, adding 12% could definitely move the system to a new mode. And remember it accumulates, and this permafrost degradation will continue to happen as long as there is the heat, and it contributes to the heat, so there is a point where, even if we stop adding new greenhouse gasses, the output of the former permafrost will exceed the rate at which greenhouse gasses degrade, and the process will be self-sustaining until the source is exhausted.

Which you will note will likely mean double the amount of greenhouse gasses we have in the atmosphere right now (plus any additional other sources, of course, so really a lot more than that if we keep burning coal and etc.)

So, no, its not going to happen in a few years, but it will happen.

And its not a good thing.

[mhaze]

If we were very close to the bar, adding 12% could definitely move the system to a new mode. And remember it accumulates, and this permafrost degradation will continue to happen as long as there is the heat, and it contributes to the heat, so there is a point where, even if we stop adding new greenhouse gasses, the output of the former permafrost will exceed the rate at which greenhouse gasses degrade, and the process will be self-sustaining until the source is exhausted.

Which you will note will likely mean double the amount of greenhouse gasses we have in the atmosphere right now (plus any additional other sources, of course, so really a lot more than that if we keep burning coal and etc.)

So, no, its not going to happen in a few years, but it will happen.

And its not a good thing.It does not look that way. In fact, I made an error. The northward creep would be not a continuous 3 miles/decade but would be much lower each successive decade:

1st decade:
0.01C/300 miles per 1C = 3 miles creep of permafrost melt
2nd decade:
(0.01 * 0.01)C/300 miles per 1C = 0.3 miles.
3nd decade:
(0.01 * 0.01 * 0.01)C/300 miles per 1C = 0.003 miles=15 feet.

Limit, about 3 1/3 miles.

Your statement....the process will be self-sustaining
Seems to be incorrect. And thus when you say...If we were very close to the bar, adding 12% could definitely move the system to a new mode.
It would seem that you need to support that sort of statement with other evidence, facts and scientific findings unrelated to permafrost. First, you have presumed a "bar", then asserted a causal relation with "could". It's not uncommon that something that looks logical in loose verbiage form, does not prove out on working the numbers. Here we see that the numbers seem to indicate the reverse of the "loose verbiage construct".

Where is this "bar"?
What are the "modes"?
What is "very close"?

Permafrost Tipping Point....Change you can Believe in?

[macdoc]

New here but you omit some rather relevant information.

Methane is in the 25x stronger than CO2 for agw influence.

Methane, Potent Greenhouse Gas, Flowing Into The Atmosphere From Tundra Much Faster Than Expected

ScienceDaily (Dec. 11, 2008) — Much more methane gas is being emitted into the atmosphere from the tundra in northeast Greenland than previous studies have shown. New figures reveal that large amounts of greenhouse gases are being emitted into the atmosphere, not just during the warm summer months, but also during the colder autumn months.

Reality shows a much greater shift in biota both on land and ocean with some oean species 1100 km north of their ranges and some fish species moving north at 50 km a year.

Cannot post links yet ( bailed out of Dawkins site due to disagreement with management ;) )

but this provides a very good look Arctic Report Card - fill in appropriate

ww.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/land.html

I do find the nose in the bark looking at numbers kind of amusing as we have a very strong clear signal from biota who really remain unconcerned about our quibbling and simply shift their ranges poleward or upward.

If you look at the opening image on the link you'll see the scale of the signal.

Summary

Land-based observations, while widely ranging, reflect the effects of a general warming trend. For instance, there was an increase in the relative greenness of the Arctic region, consistent with warming soil and air temperatures, earlier snow melt, and the expansion of shrubs and tree line to the north. Permafrost continues to warm, however the rate of warming in the 2000s is significantly slower than in the 1990s. There is a continued tendency for a decrease in the snow cover of the Northern Hemisphere in the months of April through October. Glaciers are shrinking in most of the world. The amount of river discharge to the Arctic Ocean is increasing.

Vegetation

Evidence of widespread changes in vegetation in northern latitudes comes from trends in terrestrial greennessas detected by the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) derived from the NOAA AVHRR satellites (Myneni et al. 1997; Zhou et al. 2001; Lucht et al. 2002; Jia et al. 2003; Goetz et al. 2005; Bunn et al. 2007).

During the 1981–2005 period of observation, about 6% of the circumpolar tundra area experienced an increase in NDVI and about 1% experienced a decrease (Fig.L1; Bunn et al. 2007). The positive trends in NDVI in tundra areas have been strongest in North America. For example, in the tundra region south of 70°N (the region of the Arctic with a consistent AVHRR record from 1982 to 2005) the rate of change in NDVI is +0.58% yr–1 over the North American Arctic compared to +0.34% yr–1 over the Eurasian Arctic (Jia et al. 2007).

That's a far cry from your back of napkin calculation and reflects a combination of impacts on the Arctic as a new climate regime is moving forward rather rapidly.
The Arctic report card noted above is an excellent summary.

The biota signal tends to over ride the blogosphere denier noise rather loudly.;) ...if people pay attention.

[Beerina]

I note that although you have provoked some of the standard talking points from our resident Warmer community, none has directly answered your question (bolded by me). Let's leave out the exaggeration (Venus) which some of them jumped on and misdirected.

Let's ask the question once more:

How big a metastable temperature range is there before Earth moves to the alternate stable point that exists past the (tipping points, runaway, blah blah blah).

Either degrees C, K, F, or R may be used in the answer.


There wouldn't be any such thing. 100,000 years is very long for humans and human civilization, but it's trivial for geology. We've "swung" massively half a dozen times over that period or a little longer. Stable around some "safe-ish" region is the chimera, regardless of GW.

Personally, given the tendency of the Earth to go into ice ages easily, over and over again, the past million+ years or so, I'd be very careful about trying t suddenly reduce global warming. A few billion people moving inland slowly over a century or three is a minor nuisance to the human race. An ice age coming on in as little as 2-3 years would quickly murder billions.

[mhaze]

New here but you omit some rather relevant information.

Methane is in the 25x stronger than CO2 for agw influence. Reality shows a much greater shift in biota both on land and ocean with some oean species 1100 km north of their ranges and some fish species moving north at 50 km a year.

Cannot post links yet ( bailed out of Dawkins site due to disagreement with management ;) ) but this provides a very good look Arctic Report Card - fill in appropriate

ww.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/land.html

I do find the nose in the bark looking at numbers kind of amusing as we have a very strong clear signal from biota who really remain unconcerned about our quibbling and simply shift their ranges poleward or upward.

If you look at the opening image on the link you'll see the scale of the signal. That's a far cry from your back of napkin calculation and reflects a combination of impacts on the Arctic as a new climate regime is moving forward rather rapidly. The Arctic report card noted above is an excellent summary.

The biota signal tends to over ride the blogosphere denier noise rather loudly.;) ...if people pay attention.

Excellent points. I'll review the link in a day or two - tonight's party time. But can you relate these back to the OP?

That is my effort here. To see if various disjoint pieces of data (Alarmist and otherwise) can be combined to create some sort of plausible "Tipping Point" or "Runaway climate" since these are often stated assertions of Warmers (And for that matter are not forecast and laid out in the IPCC reports). I've always been quite interested, more or less as a detached spectator, at the various Warmer & Alarmist theories of "Tipping Points".

Rather than argue your facts, (which I'm not sure I disagree with), can they relate in any quantitative way to the issue at hand? Alternately, if they comprise interesting, but speculative musing, and cannot be quantified, then I'd reject them as material to a discussion of "What is the Tipping Point Supposed to Be".

....given the tendency of the Earth to go into ice ages easily, over and over again, the past million+ years or so, I'd be very careful about trying t suddenly reduce global warming. A few billion people moving inland slowly over a century or three is a minor nuisance to the human race. An ice age coming on in as little as 2-3 years would quickly murder billions.Yet Warmers feel the complete opposite and scream for "Urgent Action Now", since we "have already or are very close" to a "point of no return".

Curious, isn't it?

[macdoc]

Runaway is a fair bit of Hansen being polemic - it's faintly possible but there are other in between scenarios that in the past due to GW release via volcanism burning carbon strata killed just about everything the planet.

http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/Palaeofiles/Permian/SiberianTraps.html

There is an awful lot of carbon locked in the northern taiga and tundra and around the continental edges and it IS starting to "leak". That's really the only 900 lb gorilla lurking.

Tipping points.

It's not ONE thing .....various systems can hit tipping points - it's like walking on an avalanche slope - a small step can have large consequences until the slope reaches new equilbrium.....and we've been stomping around.

A good example is we know the Atlantic circulation CAN stop and is affected by fresh water release which is occurring now.

Enough fresh water, the thermohaline circulation stops....that's a tipping point for Europe which gets real cold.

World glaciation is most likely already well past a tipping point where any return to mass neutral is impossible short of massive global geo engineering ( covering the Sahara with mylar might work ;) )

The glaciers will continue to lose mass.....the only question is how fast.

The Pacific passed a tipping point in the 70s when temperatures climbed into a new zone.

Here is another
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/351374_oceans15.html?source=mypi

We ARE in the Holcene.

We ARE past a point of no return in the sense we will not return to the rather stable Holocene that nurtured human civilization.

This is the science community speaking, not "warmers".

Does point of no return imply "catastrophy"??

For some - it already is.

Is it end of civ disaster?? ....not in any short term unless we step on a methane land mine.

We might have already in term of acidification of the ocean which take 50 years to blossom and is now.

Peak oil, peak population and 650 PPM is not going to be pretty.

Most climate scientists do not speak their private thoughts which are

( it's going to be way worse in the coming 90 years and we aren't going to contain it ) far beyond the scenarios laid out in IPCC.
Arctic ice cover loss is at least 30 years ahead of anyone's scenario.

30 years out in the older scenarios - no wheat can grow in the US - the growing bands will all be in Canada and Alaska.
Some species are moving north way faster than anyone thought.

Is no wheat in US a catastrophe??? It sure would be in India which faces the same issue and the unfortunate situation of the Himalayas to the north.

Now maybe we can develop drought resistant, heat resistant wheat and maybe French vintners can move to Scotland?

It all depends on how fast it unfolds....and so far it's unfolding faster than anticipated.

Some areas will benefit Siberia and Canada ...the tropics may feel little change except the zone will expand...it already has 200 KM but drought could have a big impact as rain patterns shift.

Are there polemicists on the catastrophe side?...yep
Is there some cause for that??? yep

Pie in the sky solutions tho won't help - maybe nothing will.

But don't for a minute think a size large freight train of change is not coming faster than expected.

When I started looking at this 30 years ago in the science journals it was something in the far future - casual interest for descendants.

10 years ago it was something my daughter might have to deal with.

Now?? - in MY face....right now and some of the changes I cold see over 50 years - made sense.

Pogo was a possum from Georgia when I was a kid. http://www.igopogo.com/_borders/Pogologo.gif

Now there is one living under my porch in Canada.:confused:

The critters know....they just move where it's comfortable.

Bottom line....ocean acidification is THE reason to go carbon neutral if if climate is discounted.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080521105251.htm

The whole climate thing could go away if we all took the same approach to acidic oceans as we did to acid rain and ozone depleting emissions. Get on with carbon neutral and make money doing it:D

Hope that addresses the OP.

[Hindmost]

Runaway is a fair bit of Hansen being polemic - it's faintly possible but there are other in between scenarios that in the past due to GW release via volcanism burning carbon strata killed just about everything the planet.

http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/Palaeofiles/Permian/SiberianTraps.html

There is an awful lot of carbon locked in the northern taiga and tundra and around the continental edges and it IS starting to "leak". That's really the only 900 lb gorilla lurking.

Tipping points.

It's not ONE thing .....various systems can hit tipping points - it's like walking on an avalanche slope - a small step can have large consequences until the slope reaches new equilbrium.....and we've been stomping around.

A good example is we know the Atlantic circulation CAN stop and is affected by fresh water release which is occurring now.

Enough fresh water, the thermohaline circulation stops....that's a tipping point for Europe which gets real cold.

World glaciation is most likely already well past a tipping point where any return to mass neutral is impossible short of massive global geo engineering ( covering the Sahara with mylar might work ;) )

The glaciers will continue to lose mass.....the only question is how fast.

The Pacific passed a tipping point in the 70s when temperatures climbed into a new zone.

Here is another
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/351374_oceans15.html?source=mypi

We ARE in the Holcene.

We ARE past a point of no return in the sense we will not return to the rather stable Holocene that nurtured human civilization.

This is the science community speaking, not "warmers".

Does point of no return imply "catastrophy"??

For some - it already is.

Is it end of civ disaster?? ....not in any short term unless we step on a methane land mine.

We might have already in term of acidification of the ocean which take 50 years to blossom and is now.

Peak oil, peak population and 650 PPM is not going to be pretty.

Most climate scientists do not speak their private thoughts which are

( it's going to be way worse in the coming 90 years and we aren't going to contain it ) far beyond the scenarios laid out in IPCC.
Arctic ice cover loss is at least 30 years ahead of anyone's scenario.

30 years out in the older scenarios - no wheat can grow in the US - the growing bands will all be in Canada and Alaska.
Some species are moving north way faster than anyone thought.

Is no wheat in US a catastrophe??? It sure would be in India which faces the same issue and the unfortunate situation of the Himalayas to the north.

Now maybe we can develop drought resistant, heat resistant wheat and maybe French vintners can move to Scotland?

It all depends on how fast it unfolds....and so far it's unfolding faster than anticipated.

Some areas will benefit Siberia and Canada ...the tropics may feel little change except the zone will expand...it already has 200 KM but drought could have a big impact as rain patterns shift.

Are there polemicists on the catastrophe side?...yep
Is there some cause for that??? yep

Pie in the sky solutions tho won't help - maybe nothing will.

But don't for a minute think a size large freight train of change is not coming faster than expected.

When I started looking at this 30 years ago in the science journals it was something in the far future - casual interest for descendants.

10 years ago it was something my daughter might have to deal with.

Now?? - in MY face....right now and some of the changes I cold see over 50 years - made sense.

Pogo was a possum from Georgia when I was a kid. http://www.igopogo.com/_borders/Pogologo.gif

Now there is one living under my porch in Canada.:confused:

The critters know....they just move where it's comfortable.

Bottom line....ocean acidification is THE reason to go carbon neutral if if climate is discounted.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080521105251.htm

The whole climate thing could go away if we all took the same approach to acidic oceans as we did to acid rain and ozone depleting emissions. Get on with carbon neutral and make money doing it:D

Hope that addresses the OP.

Cool stuff:)...but mhaze will now label you a "warmer" with quasi religious antiscience beliefs...not skeptical...out to destroy Reaganomics/industry...a shill for global warming study grants...part of the conspiracy...etc.

I thought I would save him the trouble.

glenn

[macdoc]

Umm perhaps not quoting the ENTIRE post would be advised.;) Almost lost your comment.

If mHaze honours his commitment to look at the links and listen openly to the science not the fringes on both ends of the scale ....well...faint hope clause???:rolleyes:

For instance I'm strong proponent of nuclear, especially fast breeder, as we must lose the carbon - anti nuke fringers - we can do it all with renewables - do as much damage as the Inhofe crowd.

The alternative to nukes is coal and that is a non-starter.

We'll need all alternative and nuclear and the less carbon component the better - climate be damned the ocean needs it.

Sweden is doing it - North America can too if we lose the nonsenee going on in the blogosphere and get on with decarbonizing.

Much loot to be made. :D

••

My usual response to anyone that does NOT think the science comes down on AGW is to invite them to argue with Dr. Gammon.

Here is what Gammon had to say concerning links between humans and climate change.

“This is like asking, ‘Is the moon round?’ or ‘Does smoking cause cancer?’ We’re at a point now where there is no responsible position stating that humans are not responsible for climate change. That is just not where the science is.…For a long time, for at least five years and probably 10 years, the international scientific community has been very clear.”

In case there is any doubt, Gammon went on: “This is not the balance-of-evidence argument for a civil lawsuit; this is the criminal standard, beyond a reasonable doubt. We’ve been there for a long time and I think the media has really not presented that to the public.”

Dr. Richard H. Gammon
Professor of Chemistry and Oceanography
Adjunct Professor Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington

here you go - email - gammon@chem.washington.edu tell him he's delusional.

So far not a denier has taken up the offer.

••

Does that mean there is not a ton to understand?? Nope. It just acknowledges reality. A hard thing for some I guess.

Suffer fools n'all - not much on that.....dialogue with an open mind on the science....no problem.

What to do about it all....who the hell knows...other than lose the carbon for a bunch of reasons.

[Hindmost]

Umm perhaps not quoting the ENTIRE post would be advised.;) Almost lost your comment.

If mHaze honours his commitment to look at the links and listen openly to the science not the fringes on both ends of the scale ....well...faint hope clause???:rolleyes:

For instance I'm strong proponent of nuclear, especially fast breeder, as we must lose the carbon - anti nuke fringers - we can do it all with renewables - do as much damage as the Inhofe crowd.

The alternative to nukes is coal and that is a non-starter.

We'll need all alternative and nuclear and the less carbon component the better - climate be damned the ocean needs it.

Sweden is doing it - North America can too if we lose the nonsenee going on in the blogosphere and get on with decarbonizing.

Much loot to be made. :D

...snip...

I sometime trim posts--as above-- but there has to be a clear break so I don't distort meaning.

I have posted this in the past: Nuclear power won't be able to solve the carbon issue...the US alone has 500,000MW of installed coal capacity. This would require about 400 nukes to replace them. That would essentially double the worlds capacity. There isn't enough engineers and crafts to get that done. (I am sure you know, China isn't going to stop building coal plants.)

The US has started very slowly....utility execs are still a bit weary of the idea.

glenn

[macdoc]

That's correct but each nuke that does get built is a couple less coal plants. It all helps until the Nimby's wake up.

There was note that the world was building nukes 1 every five days in the heyday and could do it again.

I wonder how that little Toshiba isotope nukes will do.

I'd put one in my backyard in a heart beat.

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2007/12/toshiba-micro-nuclear.jpg

Toshiba's building a "Micro Nuclear" reactor for your garage?
by Paul Miller, posted Dec 19th 2007 at 11:40AM

Alright, details are slim, and we really have no idea if Toshiba has any plans whatsoever to sell these nuclear reactors to consumers -- in fact, we hope it doesn't -- but it does seem like the company is well on its way to commercializing the design. Toshiba's Micro Nuclear reactors are designed to power a single apartment building or city block, and measure a mere 20-feet by 6-feet. The 200 kilowatt reactor is fully automatic and fail-safe, and is completely self-sustaining. It uses special liquid lithium-6 reservoirs instead of traditional control rods, and can last up to 40 years, making energy for about 5 cents per kilowatt hour. Toshiba has been testing the reactors since 2005, and hopes to install its first reactor in Japan in 2008, with marketing to Europe and America in 2009. Oh, and we lied: we totally want one of these in our garage.

I think coal will be built - I just want to see a big time carbon tax on it.

[paint3d]

All the global warming computer models both assume and depend upon a lot of positive feedback. This won't look like a problem until you realize that positive feedback is extremely rare in nature; so rare, in fact, that the only other example we know of is a nuclear chain reaction.

Of course, I point this out because I am shilling for "BIG OIL!!" I am still waiting for that paycheck.

[macdoc]

You want to explain what you mean by positive feedback....as there are many situations in nature that are self reinforcing.

There is NO question albedo changes feed temperature changes in both directions.

There is also no question that warming releases more methane which captures more heat.

Are you sure you are not referring to cascade where there is no limit if there is fuel?? That's what a nuclear reaction is.

[Travis]

Is there a desertification tipping point? It seems like every documentary on GW spends a lot of time talking about how pretty much everywhere will become dry lifeless deserts. Is this because a certain point gets crossed and evaporated water (meaning clouds) doesn't leave the oceans and the land just bakes and turns into a wasteland? Is that what will cause the predicted GW mass extinction event? Would the GW mass extinction be on par with the Permian extinction event?

[lomiller]

paint3d

Positive feedback is actually extremely common in nature. You don’t get cyclic behavior like predator/prey cycles or oscilations like ENSO from pure negative feedback, they require positive feedback.

In any case since effects like solar activity and Milankovitch cycles would be incapable of having a measurable effect on the earths climate without positive feedback the notion that it doesn’t play a role in the earths climate is a non-starter.

[mhaze]

Cool stuff:)...but mhaze will now label you a "warmer" with quasi religious antiscience beliefs...not skeptical...out to destroy Reaganomics/industry...a shill for global warming study grants...part of the conspiracy...etc.

I thought I would save him the trouble.

glennThanks for pointing out all those essential flavors in the discussion, which of course tilt it toward patterns of belief and not science. None of which are intended to be ad hominems or insults, you understand...We respect our Warmers around here, including their quasi religious antiscience beliefs, non skeptical attitudes, their sincere, naive, gullible intent to destroy industry, and we certainly respect their funding sources, and so forth.

Jumping to ocean acidifying, now, are we?

We could just agree that there is no tipping point or runaway climate condition that can be established based on permafrost melt, and go on to some other possible tipping points and runaway conditions. Yes, indeed...the OCEANS ACIDIFYING.

So are we through with the Alarmist Permafrost Melt Tipping Point Lie and moving on now? By the way, the word to describe Hansen's "polemics" is "Lies".

Oceans, now? Where's that tipping point?

[macdoc]

Have you actually ever posted any science or do you just like the sound of your own pontification.

Quit the dodging and tell us why the 2008 Arctic Report is incorrect.....

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/

C'mon - we're listening?

[mhaze]

....Quit the dodging and tell us why the 2008 Arctic Report is incorrect.....

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/

C'mon - we're listening?Derail. No clear relation to "Tipping Points" or "Runaway Climate". Nice pictures, though.

Let's have those tipping points.

[macdoc]

Won't take a stand?? Typical dodge.
Tipping points were already clearly explained to you.

Geophysical subsystems all have different instabilities and tipping points. Greenland will not stop melting now - it's irreversible unless we pump so much particulate that we cool the surface. That's a tipping point.

Thermohaline circulation has NOT reached a tipping point.....tho there is enough fresh water in the Arctic to have some concern.

If you knew the science you would know how foolish the topic was. There is no ONE tipping point.

[TrueSceptic]

Thanks for pointing out all those essential flavors in the discussion, which of course tilt it toward patterns of belief and not science. None of which are intended to be ad hominems or insults, you understand...We respect our Warmers around here, including their quasi religious antiscience beliefs, non skeptical attitudes, their sincere, naive, gullible intent to destroy industry, and we certainly respect their funding sources, and so forth.

Well, liar, we do not respect lying denialists like you, and we especially despise you when you accuse others of doing what no one does as outrageously as you.

(There is copious evidence in these forums, of course.)


Jumping to ocean acidifying, now, are we?

We could just agree that there is no tipping point or runaway climate condition that can be established based on permafrost melt, and go on to some other possible tipping points and runaway conditions. Yes, indeed...the OCEANS ACIDIFYING.

So are we through with the Alarmist Permafrost Melt Tipping Point Lie and moving on now? By the way, the word to describe Hansen's "polemics" is "Lies".

Oceans, now? Where's that tipping point?
What lie would that be?

[mhaze]

.....p, you see.Greenland will not stop melting now - it's irreversible unless we pump so much particulate that we cool the surface. That's a tipping point..

...There is no ONE tipping point.No one said there was X number of tipping points. However, we are interested in Warmers actually explaining just one. You see, "one " is smaller than "many"...

Warmers should have an easier job explaining one, than many. I'm trying to help.

Greenland will not stop melting now - it's irreversible ..... That's a tipping point..

Biggie claim you are staking out there. I thought we were going to dig into Ocean Acidification? No? Okay. Can you support your claim on Greenland?

That would imply stating something like the natural condition of the island, it's current deviation from those historical standards, the mechanism by which the "condition is irreversible", and the chain of causality leading to man as the culprit.



Let's hear it.

[macdoc]

There is no "tipping" point on ocean acidification - your mindset is of a 8 year old.

There ARE tipping points for individual species affected by acidification. Once the chemistry gets outside their range they die.

Earth & Climate

Research on ocean acidification is a newly emerging field and was one of the major topics at this year's European Geosciences Union (EGU) General Assembly held in Vienna in April.*
The chemistry is very straight-forward: ocean acidification is linearly related to the amount of CO2 we produce. CO2 dissolves in the ocean, reacts with seawater and decreases the pH. Since the industrial revolution, the oceans have become 30 percent more acidic (from 8.2 pH to 8.1 pH). "Under a "business as usual scenario, predictions for the end of the century are that we will lower the surface ocean pH by 0.4 pH units, which means that the surface oceans will become 150 percent more acidic -- and this is a 'hell of a lot' ", said Jelle Bijma, chair of the EuroCLIMATE programme Scientific Committee and a biogeochemist at the Alfred-Wegener-Institute Bremerhaven.
"Ocean acidification is more rapid than ever in the history of the earth and if you look at the pCO2 (partial pressure of carbon dioxide) levels we have reached now, you have to go back 35 million years in time to find the equivalents" continued Bijma
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080521105251.htm

and it is now ....

Off Northern California, the acidified water was only four miles from shore.

"What we found ... was truly astonishing," said oceanographer Richard Feely, of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle. "This means ocean acidification may be seriously impacting marine life on the continental shelf right now."

All along the coast, the scientists found regions where the water was acidic enough to dissolve the shells and skeletons of clams, corals and many of the tiny creatures at the base of the marine food chain. Acidified water also can kill fish eggs and a wide range of marine larvae.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004433462_acidoceans23m.html

For some species = tipping points will have been reached a while back.

•••

For Greenland.......

Since you like to dodge - tell me the answer for the Hiroshima equivalent of melting 220 CU KM a year

Is it approx thermonuclear equivalent of

one Hiroshima day

28 a day

432 a day

2717 a day

5412 a day

some other value you can defencd??

- then I'll explain the rather simple physics of negative mass balance. I don't think for one moment you have ANY notion of the energy scales.

BTW there is a strong reason for using thermonuclear as a scale and source - but you would not understand that either.

Or do you have a new forcing that will oppose it that you intend to win the Nobel by revealing??

•••

[Hindmost]

All the global warming computer models both assume and depend upon a lot of positive feedback. This won't look like a problem until you realize that positive feedback is extremely rare in nature; so rare, in fact, that the only other example we know of is a nuclear chain reaction.

Of course, I point this out because I am shilling for "BIG OIL!!" I am still waiting for that paycheck.

FYI: A nuclear chain reaction is typically a negative feedback function for a reactor that is designed properly. An increase in temperature in the reactor tends to shut the reaction down due to the temperature changes in the water...and a few other factors.

The only "natural" reactor that occured in Africa some time ago was more of a negative feedback as well. The U235 weight percent was much higher long ago, and a natural chain reaction formed. Water incursion in the right area probably yielded enough thermal neutrons to start a reaction...which then heated the water and boiled it away...shutting down the reactor. More water incusion restarted the reaction...then it would boil away...essentially a negative feedback.

A fission nuclear weapon doesn't really have a feedback unless you include the blowing up part....the design is to achieve many fission multiples as possible so there is no feedback mechanism.

glenn

[macdoc]

Um a nuclear reaction is a positive feedback one neutron releases more in a cascade - that IS a positive feedback.

Running out of fissionable density stops the cascade. ( pull the control rods ).

What you are talking about is a control mechanism or limiter. Water and diminishing density in the natural reactor.

The explosion is simply the trigger that puts the uranium in close enough proximity to begin the cascade.

[mhaze]

There is no "tipping" point on ocean acidification - your mindset is of a 8 year old.

There ARE tipping points for individual species affected by acidification. Once the chemistry gets outside their range they die.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080521105251.htm

and it is now ....


http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004433462_acidoceans23m.html

For some species = tipping points will have been reached a while back.


•••

So far, you've skipped between several subjects with Hiroshimah Alarmist megatonnage. Now, where are the tipping points? If you've got them, let's see them. Get to the point please.


Greenland?
Ocean acidification - debunked, no tipping point, skipped to tipping points for Fish, apparently
Permafrost - debunked, no tipping point

Reciting the OP, I've only invited you to show a reasonable proof of a tipping point. Runaway global warming, what is the tipping point supposed to be?
Could anyone fill me in on the model and explanation of runaway global warming? What are the positive feedback cycles that would cause increased temperature? Ice cap loss screwing with albedo, methane release from clathrate deposits, what else? How much difference would negative feedback factors like increased algal activity have? How hard a shove does the system need to go spiralling hard one way or another?
You said this:Greenland will not stop melting now - it's irreversible ..... That's a tipping point..
Biggie claim...Can you support your claim on Greenland?

That would imply stating ....


the natural climatic condition of the island - the equilibrium climate
it's current deviation from those historical standards
the mechanism by which the "condition is irreversible"
the chain of causality leading to man as the culprit.

[macdoc]

What a dodge - I see why people have written you off. Some do it on purpose.

http://www.google.com/images?q=tbn:v6630aEDxqNu3M::blogs.townonline.com/newton/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/head-in-sand.JPG

If you don't have a clue about the energies and physics involved, which is obvious, then we can certainly easily clearly ascertain the value of your commentary.
Exactly the value that ARYABHATT ascertained a while ago.

[Hindmost]

Thanks for pointing out all those essential flavors in the discussion, which of course tilt it toward patterns of belief and not science. None of which are intended to be ad hominems or insults, you understand...We respect our Warmers around here, including their quasi religious antiscience beliefs, non skeptical attitudes, their sincere, naive, gullible intent to destroy industry, and we certainly respect their funding sources, and so forth.

....snip...

I think this is where some would put out the laughing dog smiley. You may not fit the exact definition of an ad hom attack, but your posts are in the ad hom logical fallacy family. It is a style more common in politics. Let's see if you can try to discuss the issues without all the poisoning of the well. It truly marginalizes everything you post and all the global warming threads...and is definitely anti-science.

Anyhow, I am still waiting for your explaination of how CO2 can get the planet out of a snowball, but not heat it up now. It must have been the coolest..no wait...warmist tipping point. Please respond this time.

http://www.snowballearth.org/paleop.html

glenn:)

[Hindmost]

Um a nuclear reaction is a positive feedback one neutron releases more in a cascade - that IS a positive feedback.

Running out of fissionable density stops the cascade. ( pull the control rods ).

What you are talking about is a control mechanism or limiter. Water and diminishing density in the natural reactor.

The explosion is simply the trigger that puts the uranium in close enough proximity to begin the cascade.

what's the feedback?

glenn