We may have 3 degrees additional warming in pipeline at current CO2 concentration

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by Plazma Inferno!, Jul 4, 2016.

  1. Plazma Inferno! Ding Ding Ding Ding Administrator

    Messages:
    4,609
    Either the entire world is set to experience dramatic additional warming once we stabilise at the current (400+ ppm) CO2 concentration – or we are still dramatically underestimating the local climate sensitivity of the Arctic – a region that might in that case not warm 2 or 3 times as fast as the global average, but rather about 6 to 8 times.
    In any case, it’s bad news that’s being dredged up from the bottom of Lake El’gygytgyn. The results of the sediment cores are worrying: the last time the atmosphere had CO2 concentrations around 400ppm, temperatures in the Arctic were about 8 degrees higher. This might imply that there is still a huge amount of global average warming in the pipelines. Several studies already confirmed bad news, including the latest research, led by Gary Shaffer of the University of Copenhagen, published in Geophysical Research Letters, showing evidence that the CO2 sensitivity of Earth’s climate system may in fact increase with warming.

    http://www.bitsofscience.org/real-global-temperature-trend-paleoclimate-warming-in-pipeline-7151/

    Paper: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL069243/full
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,487
    At first blush I tend to discredit claimed "science" when loaded value judgment words like "bad, worse, bad news, etc..." are employed.
    I suspect that comparing climate within an ice age(which we are) to (normal) earth climate (not in an ice age) introduces unknown variables.
    Perhaps, one day, we will have an accurate understanding of why the earth goes into periodic ice ages, and why the earth exits these(this) ice ages.
    Meanwhile, much study remains to be done.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,921
    It seems like you discredit science when that science could result in addition costs to business.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,755
    Exactly. To paraphrase Upton Sinclair, it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his comfort/investments/employment depends upon not understanding it.
     
  8. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,487
    You are inaccurate in your assessment.

    I do, however, prefer forests to ice fields and arctic deserts.
     
  9. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,276
    But comparing a phase of the climate within an ice age to similar phases of ice age climate within that same ice age - which the climate alarmists are doing - should be less uncertain. Right?

    And the supposition that unknown variables explain the visible trends and circumstances needs to account, then, for the lack of effect of the known variables. If you think that the current trends do not derive fundamentally from the CO2 boost, for example, you have to explain why not - what happened to the obvious and well studied heat trapping and ocean acidifying effects of the CO2 we are measuring in the atmosphere every day, and their known and studied consequences?

    Meanwhile, this indicates that you are missing the point entirely:
    Apparently you regard the near term future of the current warming trend as a return of the long term stable and slowly attained warmer climactic regimes of the past. This is not supported by evidence or argument. You aren't going to get forests in place of ice fields and arctic deserts - not for thousands of years, anyway. They take too long. This warming is far more rapid than that.

    I prefer cute furry mammals to overgrown semi-reptilian dinosaurs, too - but the getting from one to the other was a catastrophe.
     
  10. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,487
    Still:
    Comparison to PETM is problematic.
    We have not even controlled for variables within this ice age. We do not know why the eemian, Holsteinian, and almost every pre holsteinian interglacial were warmer than our holocene.
    We are obviously missing a key ingredient.
    (An unknown unknown).
    Or................................
     
  11. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,276
    And it is informative. We need all the info we can get - we're taking some very big risks here.
    But we do know that we have a radically boosted CO2 concentration to deal with now.
     
  12. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,487
    Plant a tree a month for 10 years
     
  13. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,276
    Nice trees. Meanwhile, we have a very large CO2 boost continuing, caused by fossil fuel combustion continuing, driving a rapid global warming continuing, with consequent dislocations major and minor incoming.

    Much of it incoming before those trees are fully grown.

    What kind of tree, btw? Several species common to my neighborhood are likely to be out of their climate range by the time they would be due to shade the place. But their replacements are not yet reliably in climate range. And the precipitation regime uncertainty weighs in. Limits the choices.
     
  14. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,487
    Do a mix. Eschew mono-culture.
     
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,276
    One tree a month mix? Mix of what? Because if the mix mostly dies, monoculture - at best - is what's left. And we're getting into serious money now, for dead saplings and the land to plant them in. A mix where half the trees get killed by cold snaps in the winter the first ten years and the other half die from evapotranspiration deficit in the incoming summers of the second ten years is an expensive waste of what will be much needed resources.

    Face it: planting trees does a lot of good, but not in dealing with this particular problem. "Meanwhile, we have a very large CO2 boost continuing, caused by fossil fuel combustion continuing, driving a rapid global warming continuing, with consequent dislocations major and minor incoming."
     
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2016
  16. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,487
    If you want change, then change.
    One look at the freak show running for president should convince you that only personal action can be expected to yield real change.
    So:
    Change.
     
  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,276
    So: quit planting trees, then plant some trees, then quit planting trees, and so forth?

    How about if I change my hairstyle, periodically, instead? It's cheaper. And I want to keep on planting trees, my status quo.

    Also, although I realize my job is planning my next change, there's this to consider: "Meanwhile, we have a very large CO2 boost continuing, caused by fossil fuel combustion continuing, driving a rapid global warming continuing, with consequent dislocations major and minor incoming."

    And this: politics is the responsibility of adults. It's one of the things adults do.
     
  18. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,487
    Stop saying "WE" whiteboy!*
    I've been carbon negative for over 2 decades now. (Me and my trees)

    You could;
    eat locally grown
    don't fly
    keep driving down to 1000 miles per year(less is better)
    quit mowing your grass
    avoid air conditioning, and heating over 50 degrees above ambient on average.

    little things
    just consistent approximations toward a goal

    politics
    keep in touch with your congressman
    stay informed, and find out what he/she thinks can and will work and what could actually be successfully lobbied for and voted on.
    ( I read mine's voting record and when puzzled call or email to ask why he voted the way he did----------He always responds and gives reasons. On one military spending bill, he first voted no-- then in another vote on the bill voted yes---certain riders had been removed making the compromise more palatable.) I was shot down when requesting support for single(gvmt) payer health care, and when requesting seed money to start a local bus service(mass transit) for this growing commuter community.

    Democracy is a royal pain in the ass---------it takes lots of time and you rarely get what you want.
    That being said:
    Vote your conscience and:
    Ignore this quadrennial dog and pony show.

    Take Ron Paul's perspective, after the dust settles: Look to see if there is/has been any real and substantive change. (deviation from established vectors)
    or
    if only the name of the party in power has changed.

    ...........
    * = old Tonto joke
     
  19. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,276
    My only use of "we" was in this: "Meanwhile, we have a very large CO2 boost continuing, caused by fossil fuel combustion continuing, driving a rapid global warming continuing, with consequent dislocations major and minor incoming."

    The "we" there is unaffected by your personal circumstances.
    And then, of course, turn one's attention to the incoming problem, which remains.
     

Share This Page