AvantHiatus
-
Posts
4,222 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Blogs
Forums
American Weather
Media Demo
Store
Gallery
Posts posted by AvantHiatus
-
-
No, an ice free arctic is permanent in the summer when you have this much CO2. We are still bleeding off the holocene inertia via albedo/ice sheets and ocean absorption.
We would have to geo-engineer and go carbon negative to prevent an ice free arctic.
-
The transition problem[edit]
Variations of Cycle Times, curves determined from ocean sedimentsThe transition problem refers to the switch in the frequency of climate variations 1 million years ago. From 1–3 million years, climate had a dominant mode matching the 41 ka cycle in obliquity. After 1 million years ago, this switched to a 100 ka variation matching eccentricity, for which no reason has been established.[citation needed]
Why didn't the Pliocene and earlier epochs exhibit Milankovitch signals in the climate? It's not about astronomy, it's more about CO2 being permanently sustained and only contained by weathering and geological processes. Positive feedbacks are underestimated in a carbon system sequestered to the rim in the Arctic.
The transition problem reveals why Milankovitch cycles are sensitive to small changes in internal climate forcings.
The effects of these variations are primarily believed to be due to variations in the intensity of solar radiation upon various parts of the globe. Observations show climate behavior is much more intense than the calculated variations. Various internal characteristics of climate systems are believed to be sensitive to the insolation changes, causing amplification (positive feedback) and damping responses (negative feedback).
Over the past 65 Ma, since the beginning of the Cenozoic when temperatures in polar regions were in the neighborhood of 100C, the Earth experienced the erratic global cooling shown in fig. 1(a). This was a consequence primarily of the drifting of the continents with which is associated changes in ocean-basin geometry, mountain-building, volcanic eruptions and other phenomena that affect the two factors that mainly determine globally averaged surface temperatures: the albedo of the planet, and the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases. Superimposed on the global cooling were periodic climate cycles in response to Milankovitch forcing. This term refers to modest, perfectly periodic variations in the distribution of sunlight because of periodic variations 3 in orbital parameters such as the tilt (obliquity) of the Earth’s axis. Although this forcing has been relatively constant over the past several million years, the amplitude of the climatic response has changed because, at different times, the long-term global cooling introduced different climate feedbacks
The Pliocene Paradox
http://www.aos.princeton.edu/WWWPUBLIC/gphlder/pliopar.pdf
A. Fedorov1, A. C. Ravelo2, P. S. Dekens2, P. deMenocal3 M. Barreiro4, R. Pacanowski5, S.G. Philander4
-
I'll have to find it but a paper was written just a few years ago showing that we won't stop the next ice age. We won't even delay it that long. Mostly because we can't sustain our CO2 input into the system. It decays down to negligible amounts within like a thousand years and the power of the weaker sun just overwhelms it pretty quickly.
I thought the sun was getting stronger on longer timescales, but it's definitely a minor change in the timeframe being discussed above. Unless you're referring to the Milankovitch influence, not sure how potent that is when everything is already melted out.
We will have to agree to disagree here. Would be nice to see the paper but since there no paleo analogs for the anthropocene, we can't say for sure how it would play out.
-
250 feet of sea level rise isn't going to happen before the next glacial age begins. That would require melting Antarctica, it's still gaining ice in the interior -- the calving on the edges might be completely normal.
Well if we ever reach a certain SLR threshold, ice ages no longer become possible in a sense of the normal holocene cycle. There would be a massive delay of perhaps 500k to 3 million years if we ever reach CO2 levels of 600-800ppm+ due to feedback systems.
Like I said tho, the final outcome likely resides between Hansen and IPCC. A very PETM'ish world where algae blooms prevent runaway greenhouse Venus Earth from ever happening.
-
So, you're back to making things up. Stupid of me to expect otherwise.
Well my man, 250ft SLR rise takes time ya know no matter how much CO2 is discharged. It's not made up at all but may not be necessarily correct. Nobody is capable of predicting the future 100% using logic.
I think the middle road approach is the best option but it is the most risky economic/quality of living path because we risk simultaneously investing and collapsing in the short and long-term. The reward is a streamlined capitalistic transition to the new green economy without breaking the bank.
-
Okay, but you said adapting to SLR would be more expensive than stopping it. What you're suggesting would cost trillions upon trillions of dollars that, frankly, no one actually has.
It's possible to do this over a longer period like 10-20 years for about 15% of the US GDP per year. We would just have to take more risks with SLR and accept the loss of some cities and hope abrupt climate change does not occur.
It's definitely possible but the willpower is not there yet. Regardless, the US going 100% renewable doesn't solve outside emission sources.
I still think it is cheaper in the deep future to fight SLR now rather than adapt but probably more expensive for the next 100-200 years.
-
Abruptly shutting down all CO^2 emissions would cost trillions and would lead to your eventual starvation and death.
We would still have 1-2 years (before cutting emissions) to install a 100% renewable infrastructure in a new-deal on steroids type overhaul but yes it would never happen cause many are not willing to cut their losses and it would be a human/economic rights violation for third world countries that depend on our petroleum exports.
The other way to prevent the effects of SLR is simply to build seawalls and drainage systems, but this solution is only feasible for certain cities that can afford it, and it begins to fail in the long-run when SLR really accelerates.
We would have to start upgrading before 2020 tho to stop dangerous SLR from kicking in faster than we can adapt in the long-haul. You could say this is the most pivotal decade in the history of human civilization.
The cost benefit does not show up until the 22nd or 23rd century but it is cheaper, it's really way out there but I'd say it's better than the collapse of civilization and possibly mass extinction depending on how long we stay on business as usual.
It would seem possible to keep current civilization alive after coastal cities have flooded out but such rapid SLR flux is indicative of rapid system change and instability resulting in poor food productions and biosphere collapse.
-
1. Is it cheaper?
2. How can we prevent it?
1.) Yes
2.) By abruptly shutting down all CO2 emissions, not even geoengineering can stop bottom melt. It looks like 1-4ft of SLR is locked in.
-
Why even answer him? He is just another troll, should be five posted.
Keep this stuff out of the Arctic ice thread, and no I was not trolling but I know your agenda.
-
If you have doubts, feel free to use NJ Flood-mapper.
-
All you need is 1-2ft of SLR to disrupt most coastal communities and at 3-4ft they become totally dysfunctional and real estate/housing would likely begin collapsing. Safe to assume this will occur in our lifetimes without strong policy action unless you are older than 50.
Thus we have a two-pronged initiative to act, both for ourselves and future generations. Anything above that range before 2070 would basically solidify future projections like 5-10 meters because of rate hysteresis.
-
We know more now than we did in 1988, just saying'
-
So it begins...
-
There are some extremely alarming things well within the threshold of scientific possibility with climate change. While abrupt methane feedback or sudden sea level rise is not likely in the next 100 years, there is some evidence to suggest there is a modest possibility either could actually occur. Even if that possibility is 2%, should climate scientists just sweep it under the rug? I just don't understand that logic. Why bury earth changing consequences of climate change because they are unlikely or cause "scary" PR? Look at the WAIS. No more than 10 years ago scientists that suggested inevitable collapse were heavily mocked and now that thought is becoming mainstream in literature.
Some on this board treat many of these scientifically feasible CAGW events as alarmist propaganda while other treat them like an absolute certainty. Both are wrong, IMO.
That came about because of the failed predictions in the 2000s of Arctic ice lasting until 2080 and Antarctica not contributing to SLR in the 21st century. If we assume this trend of underestimating risks continues, very nasty things will transpire.
-
True but I don't know of a better way to generate urgent awareness (which is what is required due to climate system inertia). AGW is a perfect risk because it's a human lifetime-scale event but not as close in as 10-20 years which is when people stop caring.
How do we propose solutions without explaining implications? Do we make up new reasons for going green? I can claim that my ideas on this subject are usually well-thought out and I don't expect to be wrong. It's just that most on this forum have a false perception of how bad things already are.
I can't adapt to what you believe in. I am just stating soon-to-be well known facts. For example, Hurricane Sandy should of been an all hands on deck moment for this generation of people. There will be more storm surges that people just can't brush away and forget about.
Largest red tide on record.
-
The Eemian period was an interglacial period driven by Milankovitch cycles. The era we are in now, is the first carbon driven era in perhaps a few hundred million years.
Your reference to the era and its co2 level is laughable.
Welcome to trollville. Temperatures follow ocean trends, never forget and you will go far. Don't underestimate the situation we are entering.
Most rapid increase of CO2 ever? Unprecedented.
-
And you smile like that's what you want...At least now we know your slant
The Earth is going back to the native state. Icehouse Earth has only been around for 20% of the paleo record, and a good chunk of that is pre-Permian when the sun was weaker.
-
Where did you pull that from?
I'd love to look at all of the basins
https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/index.html
https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/basin_data.html
All basins are available. Ocean heat is just exploding everywhere it seems.
-
This is exactly what I was referring to with my post. I couldnt have explained amy better than you just did.
Just like I had said, Hansen has done some good work...I would never deny that. With that said it's the things he has said in congressional testimonies & media outlets that is exaggerated, bogus alarmism at its finest that has feed denialism. Why? Because those things he says sincerely hoping to move public action through fear backfires when it doesn't happen.
Most of the general public indeed does not know Hansen...but they know the headlines many of his past remarks have created.
Hansen was AL Gore's prophet in much of his dribble.
So, again...I applaud the sincere efforts, I just think it's has proven to be a totally wrong approach in influencing public perception.
Alarmism is more truthful than manipulating someone into a new paradigm for reasons other than to save the planet. I am agreement with the green crowd tho. A more sustainable world is a more human world and people should be eager to reform society in the absence of immediate threats from AGW.
Alarmism is just the branch of explaining the implications of said facts. The general public is not informed enough to understand implications on every subject and western civilization encourages specialization, preventing people from seeing the big picture.
-
5-10 meter SLRIt's still barely in the realm of possibility. That would be an insane acceleration tho and that kind of meltwater injection would definitely shut down ocean circulations and end civilization across the board. It also requires that we stay on business as usual indefinitely which is unlikely.
The CO2 atmospheric level would be something insane like 600ppm by 2080.
-
James Hansen has done more harm to climate science's public perception in the U.S. more than any other person. His exaggerated predictions throughout the years that have not come true has contributed to the high % of denialism in this country.
For that reason the harm he has done heavily outways the good. And he has done some good things.
Dr. Hansen is one of the reasons I've become so outspoken about cool, objective thought & language centered around climate change. When discussing concerns & dangers excited, hyped, exaggerated language (when unknown) only creates damage when there is no fruition.
Remember that perception is reality to the public.
I want to believe you. The only example I can think of is this interview from 2009 where he mentions the topic of tipping points. Otherwise, his warnings are usually vague and far out into the future. In other words, no body really knows if he was right, even if they claim to know, which goes back to having a false perception of the climate. No doubt the cold spell in the US had an effect on maintaining people's opinions despite TWCs heoric efforts.
In many ways he was right on the money due to 2012 and the recent occurrences in Antarctica involving the collapse of WAIS. FWIW, James Hansen probably knows more about AGW than anybody else in a hollistic sense.
In the grand scheme of things, 2013-2014 does not represent the next 5 years and definitely not the next 20 years.
-
BS!
Possibly, it is a large jump tho.
https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/basin_data.html
3-month 0-2000m average reveals 2015
2012.125 5.675 0.251 3.382 0.136 2.294 0.115
2013.125 8.134 0.217 4.125 0.121 4.009 0.096
2014.125 8.404 0.212 4.449 0.121 3.955 0.091
2015.125 8.944 0.217 4.728 0.108 4.216 0.109
According to this, North Atlantic OHC has recovered since 2012. 0-700m shows warming as well.
2012.125 3.385 0.190 2.270 0.102 1.114 0.087
2013.125 5.264 0.166 2.907 0.091 2.357 0.075
2014.125 5.185 0.163 2.907 0.093 2.278 0.070
2015.125 5.736 0.164 3.210 0.081 2.526 0.083
-
The 0-2000m layer of the Atlantic has begun to warm exponentially.
YEAR AO AOse NA NAse SA SAse
2005.500 5.749 0.196 3.606 0.249 2.143 0.307
2006.500 5.875 0.200 3.807 0.129 2.068 0.113
2007.500 5.608 0.192 3.850 0.183 1.757 0.315
2008.500 5.592 0.503 3.530 0.467 2.062 0.136
2009.500 5.537 0.326 3.241 0.264 2.296 0.118
2010.500 5.978 0.226 3.692 0.174 2.286 0.380
2011.500 6.486 0.471 3.903 0.294 2.583 0.242
2012.500 6.375 0.262 3.603 0.171 2.772 0.167
2013.500 7.977 0.408 4.389 0.141 3.588 0.344
2014.500 8.270 0.257 4.451 0.164 3.819 0.165 -
IIRC the NATL OHC has been stagnant or stalled for 15 yrs.
What about the West Atlantic OHC? Perhaps the two regions are canceling each other out.
Climate Change Banter
in Climate Change
Posted
Where is the paper? How can you make such strong claims without circumstantial evidence or analog examples?
For all we know, the holocene world might be more prone to overheating beyond certain GHG and Albedo thresholds. We've never had the carbon injection into the atmosphere that we have now.
I know you are trying to emotionally cope with having wrecked the Earth for millions of years but this is a science forum.