Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Science Daily)   Until now global warming has been considered independently of ocean acidification. Until now   (sciencedaily.com) divider line 35
    More: Scary, global warming, ocean acidification, oceans, climate change, DMs, James Reimer, equilibrium, doses  
•       •       •

1898 clicks; posted to Geek » on 26 Aug 2013 at 2:54 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



35 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
Bf+
2013-08-26 03:00:46 PM  
Uh oh, Republicans aren't going to like this.
They hate science.
 
2013-08-26 03:05:57 PM  
I guess those scientists need new Ferraris!
 
2013-08-26 03:06:15 PM  
Hopefully there is some intrepid farker who will come here and enlighten us all to the fact that this study, and all other studies are wrong and global warming doesn't exist, and if it may possibly exist it's only because it's a sporadic natural occurence and certainly the hand of man is not involved in these things.

I hope that farker comes soon and alleviates my worries. The opinion of a farker differing from the majority of the science in the world is totally acceptable and makes me feel better. What good is "science" and "study" and "research" by learned people in the face of one person's opinion? Nothing...just nothing.
 
2013-08-26 03:11:07 PM  
Are any of the deniers that post in these threads actually serious?  I have a hard time taking the things they actually end up saying seriously.   If you're for-reals, please let me know, I'd like to understand you better*.

*and dissect your brain
 
2013-08-26 03:13:02 PM  

ikanreed: Are any of the deniers that post in these threads actually serious?  I have a hard time taking the things they actually end up saying seriously.   If you're for-reals, please let me know, I'd like to understand you better*.

*and dissect your brain


Dissect what?
 
2013-08-26 03:28:53 PM  
Until now global warming has been considered independently of ocean acidification.

No, it hasn't. We've known for some time that the mechanisms that cause global warming also contribute to acidification. This new information about the additional feedback to the warming process is a direct result of the fact that they weren't being considered independent of one another.
 
2013-08-26 03:34:53 PM  
i18.photobucket.com
 
2013-08-26 03:42:13 PM  
moodle.solanco.org
 
2013-08-26 03:43:42 PM  
What, me worry?

Pentagon bracing for public dissent over climate and energy shocks

"DoD might be forced by circumstances to put its broad resources at the disposal of civil authorities to contain and reverse violent threats to domestic tranquility. Under the most extreme circumstances, this might include use of military force against hostile groups inside the United States. Further, DoD would be, by necessity, an essential enabling hub for the continuity of political authority in a multi-state or nationwide civil conflict or disturbance."
 
2013-08-26 03:55:48 PM  
Is it time to finally panic?  I'm ready to panic.
 
2013-08-26 03:59:22 PM  
Jesus, does this mean that when global warming comes up, some GOP fanboy is going to post pictures of the surf off New Jersey as proof that the ocean still works?
 
2013-08-26 04:22:00 PM  

Irregardless: [744x979 from http://moodle.solanco.org/pluginfile.php/607/mod_page/content/1/Freas_ Favorites/Far_Side_Cartoons/Far_Side_-_dino_conference.gif image 744x979]


It's amazing how thirty years on that could easily be a parody of just about any CPAC or ALEC gathering today....
 
2013-08-26 04:38:28 PM  
This 2007 paper  considered acidification-DMS-climate feedbacks, but they appear to have found a result of the opposite sign (acidification leads to more DMS and less warming).  I don't know enough about the area to say why the new paper found a contradictory result.
 
2013-08-26 05:49:13 PM  
It is common knowledge that fossil fuel emissions of CO2 lead to global warming.


I'm sure the comments here will illustrate that nicely.
 
2013-08-26 10:01:32 PM  

Ambitwistor: This 2007 paper  considered acidification-DMS-climate feedbacks, but they appear to have found a result of the opposite sign (acidification leads to more DMS and less warming).  I don't know enough about the area to say why the new paper found a contradictory result.


Was going to post that the IPCC considered DMS a small  negative feedback. This is going to require some reading.
 
2013-08-26 10:07:55 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: Ambitwistor: This 2007 paper  considered acidification-DMS-climate feedbacks, but they appear to have found a result of the opposite sign (acidification leads to more DMS and less warming).  I don't know enough about the area to say why the new paper found a contradictory result.

Was going to post that the IPCC considered DMS a small  negative feedback. This is going to require some reading.



In case anyone wants to also do some reading and maybe even discuss it, here's the paper TFA is about.

/this is educational use, right?
 
2013-08-26 10:18:53 PM  

skozlaw: No, it hasn't. We've known for some time that the mechanisms that cause global warming also contribute to acidification. This new information about the additional feedback to the warming process is a direct result of the fact that they weren't being considered independent of one another.


The headline's all farked up.  We knew that ocean acidification was a result of the sea acting as a CO2 sink, but this process ultimately slowed AGW.

This new study is indicating that in fact ocean acidification could accelerate global warming.  That's not positive.
 
2013-08-26 11:31:11 PM  

m1ke: Is it time to finally panic?  I'm ready to panic.


I think we're ok until these puppies get released.  Then it's too late, and it's time for the end times orgies.

Methane Calthrates:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_clathrate#Methane_clathrates_an d_ climate_change
 
2013-08-27 12:25:44 AM  
What global warming?

www.woodfortrees.org
 
2013-08-27 09:39:43 AM  

SevenizGud: What global warming?


This shiat, again?

A brief overview of what's wrong with this idiocy, for anyone who may be wondering:

Global Warming is Much More Than Surface Temperature Warming

"Global Warming" is shorthand for one symptom of the human impact on the planet through our increase in greenhouse gases (principally CO2). The basic gist of the issue is fundamental physics- when you increase the amount of energy coming in or decrease the amount of energy going out of a planet's energy budget, you create an imbalance, which necessitates warming to a higher equilibrium temperature in the long run. Our emissions of greenhouse gases are decreasing the amount of energy leaving the system, i.e. we have created an energy imbalance.

Most of this increased energy is not manifested as surface temperature warming. Rather, the overwhelming majority is accumulating in the ocean.

i.imgur.com

i.imgur.com

We tend to talk about "global warming" in terms of surface warming, because we live at the planet's surface and are necessarily interested in it, but the ocean is where most of the increased-greenhouse action is.

Global Warming Does Not Mean Every Year Should Be Hotter Than The One Before

The surface temperature is indeed expected to increase over the long run, but not monotonically (i.e. every year being warmer than the one before). This is because we have large, natural, pseudo-periodic exchanges of heat between the ocean and atmosphere irrespective of human influence, such as the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO). When ENSO is positive, more heat than normal is released from the ocean to the atmosphere, increasing temperature in the short term. When ENSO is negative, more heat is sequestered in the ocean, decreasing temperature.

i.imgur.com

There are other influences on the surface temperature besides ENSO and greenhouse warming. Solar variability and aerosols (produced by volcanism as well as human activities) also play a large role in how warm or cool it is on year-to-year timescales. When you account for ENSO, solar variability, and aerosols, the underlying warming trend is much more readily apparent:

i.imgur.com

Apparent "pauses" in the surface temperature are a natural consequence of short-term variability (due to ENSO, solar, aerosols, etc.) super-imposed upon an upward trend (due to greenhouse warming). These "pauses" are seen not just in the surface instrumental record:

i.imgur.com

But also in individual runs from climate models:

i.imgur.com

These "pauses" in climate models are associated with periods of increased heat sequestration in the deeper ocean, and correspond to ENSO negative conditions. Over the past decade, we have seen predominantly ENSO negative conditions, and indeed we see an increase in deeper ocean warming at the expense of surface warming.

i.imgur.com

The fundamental lie of the "16 years no warming" graph is that it is nothing more than a "cherry-pick" of a pause in an otherwise upward trend. This can be seen by simply changing the length of the period being examined. If you look at 15 years instead of 16 years, the trend is positive:

i.imgur.com

If you look at 17 years instead of 16 years, the trend is positive.

i.imgur.com

The "pause" in warming is simply an artifact of the end points of the data, not a real cessation of warming.

An Imperfect Surface Instrumental Record

In addition to these problems, the data from the "16 years no warming" graph are from HadCRUT3. While this instrumental record was an admirable attempt to quantify the surface temperature of the planet, it was not perfect. Specifically, it suffered from very limited coverage of the higher latitudes (i.e. the poles), which are warming faster than the rest of the planet (a process called "arctic amplification"). Failing to capture this high latitude warming means the HadCRUT3 record is biased cool- something that has been demonstrated by reanalysis experiments:

i.imgur.com

The group that produces the HadCRUT3 data set was well aware of this problem and worked to overcome it. They have an updated dataset that partially addresses the problem, HadCRUT4. When you look at the same period of time (the last 192 months) in HadCRUT4, the trend is positive.

i.imgur.com

The "pause" in warming is not only a cherry-pick of end points to take advantage of variability, it is also not even robust to the choice of data set.

Cherrypicking Apparent "Pauses" in the Surface Instrumental Record Is a Bullshiat Distraction from Continued Global Warming

i.imgur.com

i.imgur.com
 
2013-08-27 05:25:57 PM  
End of thread green text shot gun incoming. Don't get any of it on you everyone.
 
2013-08-27 06:02:35 PM  

GeneralJim: When you look at the longer, more appropriate time frame, the planet is cooling.


i.imgur.com

Back in reality, anthropogenic warming has reversed the gradual, long term cooling driven by Milankovitch forcing, as Jimbo's own chart clearly illustrates.

Because back in reality, GeneralJim is wrong about everything.
 
2013-08-27 06:10:45 PM  

Jon Snow:

Most of this increased energy is not manifested as surface temperature warming. Rather, the overwhelming majority is accumulating in the ocean.
Really?  Here are a couple of counters to your claim:

i54.tinypic.com

... And, here it is, screencapped from the NOAA NODC page itself:

wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com


It certainly appears that there has been no rise in ocean heat over the last decade. Perhaps your chart uses data before correction? Correction data HERE.
 
2013-08-27 06:44:15 PM  

GeneralJim: Here are a couple of counters to your claim:


Back in reality, this is not a "counter" to what I said. Ol' Jimbo hasn't figured out that there are multiple datasets encompassing different depths. His are focused on the upper 700m only, instead of the full depth we have data for (0-2000m), which are the source of my data:

... And, here it is, screencapped from the NOAA NODC page itself:

Screencapped from the official site:

i.imgur.com

Back in reality, I explicitly discussed the role of ENSO in the accumulation of heat in the deeper (rather than upper most) ocean.

It certainly appears that there has been no rise in ocean heat over the last decade.

Back in reality, even using the 0-700m data (which is wrong), there has still been an increase over the past decade:

i.imgur.com

Back in reality, GeneralJim is wrong about everything.
 
2013-08-27 07:02:10 PM  

Jon Snow:

Back in reality, even using the 0-700m data (which is wrong), there has still been an increase over the past decade:

So only YOU know when peer-reviewed data is right or wrong.  Good to know.  So, how is it that NOAA shows both?   Could it be that NOAA is less cocksure about it than you are?  Note the rather remarkable upper cooling of the oceans:

bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-08-27 07:07:12 PM  

Jon Snow:

Because back in reality, GeneralJim is wrong about everything.
Whether one is right or wrong -- although correct or incorrect is a better phrasing for non-fascists -- is always debatable, that begs the most interesting question of all: If I'm "back in reality," where the Hell are you?
 
2013-08-27 07:25:48 PM  

GeneralJim: Jon Snow: Back in reality, even using the 0-700m data (which is wrong), there has still been an increase over the past decade:
So only YOU know when peer-reviewed data is right or wrong.  Good to know.  So, how is it that NOAA shows both?   Could it be that NOAA is less cocksure about it than you are?  Note the rather remarkable upper cooling of the oceans:

[643x418 from http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/figure-54.png image 643x418]



people.virginia.edu

people.virginia.edu


You are cherry-picking 8 years instead of your original claim about 10 years, as well as ignoring that Jon Snow's point was explicitly about "deeper (rather than upper most) ocean". Hiding from the original argument isn't as effective as you may think.
 
2013-08-27 07:30:58 PM  

GeneralJim: Jon Snow:

Back in reality, even using the 0-700m data (which is wrong), there has still been an increase over the past decade:

So only YOU know when peer-reviewed data is right or wrong.  Good to know.


GeneralJim: Jon Snow: Because back in reality, GeneralJim is wrong about everything.Whether one is right or wrong -- although correct or incorrect is a better phrasing for non-fascists -- is always debatable, that begs the most interesting question of all: If I'm "back in reality," where the Hell are you?



[facepalm]

GeneralJim here is proving that he can parse and understand text with the same "skill" that he applies to graphs.
 
2013-08-27 07:32:10 PM  

A word on "cherry-picking."   Cherry-picking is the process of only looking at a situation in ways which support one's position.  Every time SevenizGud posts the graph showing a decline in temperatures over the last 16 years, he is pounced on for cherry-picking.  If the point is to show a long-term trend, that criticism is justified.  On the other hand, we have been told that pauses of more than a couple years are no longer possible, as the driving of carbon dioxide has outstripped all other forcings, and is the controller of temperature.  That 16-year chart is valid - TO COUNTER THAT CLAIM.  Since at least I have never seen SevenizGud use the chart as part of an argument, I don't know if he is using it legitimately or not.

But, what often gets missed is that the warmer alarmists who follow the practice of starting to look at planetary temperatures ONLY starting at 1880 are equally guilty of cherry-picking, no matter what excuse they use to justify their cherry-picking.  Climate has many cycles in play at any given time, and the more one knows about them, the better picture one can get of the process involved.  In the following graph, note that warmer alarmists want to look at temperature starting at the green line, and there ONLY.  That's cherry-picking.

One of the things one misses by doing that is that there is a very large amplitude warming trend which started in around A.D. 1700, and continues to this day, accounting for most, if not all, of the warming since 1880.  If one is looking for the truth, it is important to know that warming started BEFORE the industrial revolution.  Also, there are many claims that it's not so much the temperature increase, as the SPEED of the temperature increase that is problematic.  Well, if that's the case, note the incredible speed of the rise in temperature starting around A.D. 1700.  In that time, BEFORE the industrial revolution, temperatures zoomed up almost a half-degree in about twenty years.   YIKES.   That meets or exceeds any twentieth century sprint of temperature.  And these two facts are important, because they falsify claims that the warmer alarmists make on a regular basis.

It's clear why people trying to advance a political position would wish to limit public knowledge of temperature history to the period of 1880 to the present.  It is also clear that if the objective is to understand climate, and realistically evaluate humanity's impact on the climate, it is necessary to know as much about what the planet did BEFORE human-related carbon dioxide changes as possible.  Otherwise, alarmists can convince you that something which the planet has done before is somehow unique and dangerous.


i43.tinypic.com
 
2013-08-27 07:47:40 PM  

Jon Snow:

Back in reality, anthropogenic warming has reversed the gradual, long term cooling driven by Milankovitch forcing, as Jimbo's own chart clearly illustrates.

Look, it doesn't matter how impressed you are with your own knowledge -- you simply CANNOT know what is in the future.  Guesses can be made based upon past records.  In this case, you appear to be a victim of scale.  If you look at the very chart you reference, you will see that there is a HUGE peak about 8 kya.  That has very little effect upon the heavy black smoothed line.  And, UNLESS TEMPERATURES GO UP AND STAY UP, brief upticks clearly evident in instrument and satellite measurements will not effect future versions of that same smoothed line.  Odds are that we are in for a cooler pulse of equal or greater magnitude in the very near future, as in we are already started on the cooling path.  Solar cycle 24 is about at peak, and it is an extremely weak cycle.  Solar cycle 25 is predicted to be even weaker.  In other words, we could be in for another Maunder-type minimum, and another little ice age.  And, given the age of this interglacial period, another little ice age might just be the trigger for the end of the interglacial, and the start of another major glaciation.

 
2013-08-27 07:50:22 PM  

GeneralJim: So only YOU know when peer-reviewed data is right or wrong.  Good to know.

So, how is it that NOAA shows both?   Could it be that NOAA is less cocksure about it than you are?


Back in reality, I was not claiming that the data were wrong. I simply pointed out that Old Jimbo's use of only the upper 700m was wrong- the use of singular (for use) vs. plural (for data) makes this clear.

Note the rather remarkable upper cooling of the oceans

Back in reality, Ol' Jimbo's original claim was about the past decade. After this is shown to be demonstrably false, he has to shift the goal posts and cherry pick an entirely different interval to get "cooling".

Not only that, he's using a graph of North Atlantic only data rather than global data- poor Ol' Jimbo doesn't actually understand the data in the graphs he posts, he just looks for something that appears to give the result he wants and calls it good.

Because back in reality, GeneralJim is wrong about everything.
 
2013-08-27 08:45:57 PM  
Response was too long, breaking into several parts:

GeneralJim: On the other hand, we have been told that pauses of more than a couple years are no longer possible, as the driving of carbon dioxide has outstripped all other forcings, and is the controller of temperature.


Back in reality, as I explained at 09:39:43 AM, this is simply, flatly, undeniably false. Interannual temperature variation is still dominated by internal variability, largely (though not entirely) due to ENSO. Apparent "pauses" are not only observed in the surface instrumental record, they also occur in climate models[1]. Such apparent "pauses" are associated with ENSO negative conditions and increased accumulation of heat in the deep ocean at the expense of surface warming[2][3]. The spike in 2000m OHC data and reanalysis data from the deep ocean confirm that this dynamic is taking place[4].

Back in reality, GeneralJim is wrong about everything.

[1] Easterling, D. R., and M. F. Wehner (2009), Is the climate warming or cooling?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, 3 PP., doi:200910.1029/2009GL037810.
[2] Meehl, G. A., J. M. Arblaster, J. T. Fasullo, A. Hu, and K. E. Trenberth (2011), Model-based evidence of deep-ocean heat uptake during surface-temperature hiatus periods, Nature Climate Change, 1(7), 360-364, doi:10.1038/nclimate1229.
[3] Meehl, G. A., A. Hu, J. Arblaster, J. Fasullo, and K. E. Trenberth (2013), Externally forced and internally generated decadal climate variability associated with the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation, Journal of Climate, 130408111212000, doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00548.1.
[4] Balmaseda, M. A., K. E. Trenberth, and E. Källén (2013), Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content, Geophysical Research Letters, 40(9), 1754-1759, doi:10.1002/grl.50382.
 
2013-08-27 09:37:42 PM  
Continuing:

GeneralJim: But, what often gets missed is that the warmer alarmists who follow the practice of starting to look at planetary temperatures ONLY starting at 1880 are equally guilty of cherry-picking, no matter what excuse they use to justify their cherry-picking.


Back in reality, charts of surface instrumental temperature records such as GISTEMP and NOAA are shown as starting in 1880 because that is the entire length of the record.

Back in reality, using an entire data set is normally considered the opposite of cherry-picking.

Climate has many cycles in play at any given time, and the more one knows about them, the better picture one can get of the process involved.

Back in reality, the fact that different processes operate over different timescales is one of the reasons mainstream scientific sources (such as NASA, NOAA, and other agencies) present data on the timescales they do- if a process operates on a given timescale, it makes no sense to plot data on a timescale which either fails to capture or obscures the impact of it, if one is interested in its behavior.

Back in reality, we don't try to investigate effects related to the diurnal temperature range by looking at annually smoothed data. Nor do we look at a timescale of seconds.

Back in reality, small but significant progressively accumulating changes in TOA radiative forcing manifest on multidecadal and longer timescales. It is useless and misleading to look at timescales that are either too short or too long for the subject of interest. Multidecadal to centennial timescale periods make sense because they capture the relevant processes, not because they are a "cherry-pick".

In the following graph, note that warmer alarmists want to look at temperature starting at the green line, and there ONLY. That's cherry-picking.

Back in reality, when paleoclimatic evidence is presented from the past millennia, it has been rabidly attacked by denialists like Ol' Jimbo. Indeed, he is obsessed with attack the "hockey stick" graph which does exactly what he complains "warmists" fail to do- include the millennial context for the present warming.

That's because when you do include both the millennial context and the present instrumental warming, it makes the anthropogenic reversal of gradual Milankovitch cooling even more stark[1][2][3][4]:

i.imgur.com

One of the things one misses by doing that is that there is a very large amplitude warming trend which started in around A.D. 1700, and continues to this day, accounting for most, if not all, of the warming since 1880. If one is looking for the truth, it is important to know that warming started BEFORE the industrial revolution.

i.imgur.com

Back in reality the increase in net radiative forcing driving this warming is due almost entirely to anthropogenic greenhouse gases[5]. There is a modest contribution from slightly increased solar irradiance and a small rebounding from a previous period of elevated volcanism, but without anthro GHGs, the net change in radiative forcings would be small. Back in reality, this temperature rise is not preceding anthropogenic increases in GHGs but rather responding to it.

Back in reality, rather than "falsify" anything about the human influence on increasing temperatures, extending the record prior to the advent of the instrumental record actually adds yet more evidence in support of it.

Back in reality, GeneralJim is wrong about everything.

[1] Loehle, C. and J.H. McCulloch (2008): Correction to: A 2000-Year Global Temperature Reconstruction Based on Non-Tree Ring Proxies. E+E, 19, 1, 93-100. **The only one not published in a legitimate peer-reviewed journal, but a denialist favorite**
[2] Mann, M.E., et al. (2008): Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA), 105, 36, 13252-13257, doi:10.1073/pnas.0805721105.
[3] Moberg, A., et al. (2005): Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data. Nature, 433, 613-617, doi:10.1038/nature03265.
[4] Ljungqvist, F.C. (2010): A new reconstruction of temperature variability in the extra-tropical northern hemisphere during the last two millennia. Geografiska Annaler: Series A, 92, 3, 339-351, doi:10.1111/j.1468-0459.2010.00399.x.
[5] Schmidt, G. A. et al. (2012),:Climate forcing reconstructions for use in PMIP simulations of the Last Millennium (v1.1). Geoscientific Model Development, 5(1), 185-191, doi:10.5194/gmd-5-185-2012.
 
2013-08-27 10:09:03 PM  

GeneralJim: Look, it doesn't matter how impressed you are with your own knowledge -- you simply CANNOT know what is in the future.


Back in reality, mainstream science is not claiming "to know what is in the future." Back in reality, mainstream science is simply illustrating what the climatic response would be to given increases in radiative forcings.

Guesses can be made based upon past records.

Back in reality, we are not simply dependent on assuming persistence of past behavior. Back in reality, physics allows us to dynamically model the response of a system to changes in the system's properties.

If you look at the very chart you reference, you will see that there is a HUGE peak about 8 kya. That has very little effect upon the heavy black smoothed line.

Back in reality, Ol' Jimbo is simply misreading his own graph. The "HUGE peak" that "has very little effect upon the heavy black smoothed line" is not indicative of an increase in radiative forcing that fails to translate into an increase in temperature. Rather it is simply one of the several proxy records that makes up the average, which is the heavy black line. The reason the average is not moving in lock step with the proxy at ~8kya is that there are many proxies, and it is the average of all of them- there is an equally large decrease around 8kya that Ol' Jimbo apparently can't see. Back in reality, this represents the mainstream understanding of drivers of past climatic variability- there is a peak Northern Hemisphere high latitude warming (in response to Milankovitch forcing) around that time while the high latitude SH was cooling due to the interhemispheric heat exchange facilitated by ocean circulation.

And, UNLESS TEMPERATURES GO UP AND STAY UP, brief upticks clearly evident in instrument and satellite measurements will not effect future versions of that same smoothed line.

Back in reality, the instrumental and satellite measurements are already the averaged response of the system rather than individual records, and as such are already analogous to "that same smoothed line". Back in reality, Ol' Jimbo continues to beclown himself about his own cited sources.

Back in reality, as long as radiative forcing goes up and stays up, temperatures will go up and stay up, because the climate system is not magic.

Odds are that we are in for a cooler pulse of equal or greater magnitude in the very near future, as in we are already started on the cooling path. Solar cycle 24 is about at peak, and it is an extremely weak cycle. Solar cycle 25 is predicted to be even weaker. In other words, we could be in for another Maunder-type minimum, and another little ice age.

Back in reality, a return to Maunder minimum like conditions would only offset warming due to increasing GHGs by a few tenths of a degree[1][2][3][4].

And, given the age of this interglacial period, another little ice age might just be the trigger for the end of the interglacial, and the start of another major glaciation.

Back in reality, transitions from interglacials to glacial maxima are driven by Milankovitch forcing and not solar minima. Background TOA radiative forcing was much lower prior to the Maunder Minimum, yet the further decrease in radiative forcing during that period not only failed to send us into a new glacial maximum, it had a relatively modest effect outside of the North Atlantic. Back in reality, the relatively small increase in GHGs we achieved decades ago was already sufficient to forestall another glacial maxima for tens of thousands of years.

Back in reality, GeneralJim is wrong about everything.

[1] Feulner, G., and S. Rahmstorf (2010), On the effect of a new grand minimum of solar activity on the future climate on Earth, Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, 5 PP., doi:201010.1029/2010GL042710.
[2] Jones, G. S., M. Lockwood, and P. A. Stott (2012), What influence will future solar activity changes over the 21st century have on projected global near-surface temperature changes?, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 117(D5), n/a-n/a, doi:10.1029/2011JD017013.
[3] Meehl, G. A., J. M. Arblaster, and D. R. Marsh (2013), Could a future "Grand Solar Minimum" like the Maunder Minimum stop global warming?, Geophysical Research Letters, 40(9), 1789-1793, doi:10.1002/grl.50361.
[4] Anet, J. G. et al. (2013), Impact of a potential 21st century "grand solar minimum" on surface temperatures and stratospheric ozone, Geophysical Research Letters, in press, doi:10.1002/grl.50806.
[5] Tzedakis, P. C., J. E. T. Channell, D. A. Hodell, H. F. Kleiven, and L. C. Skinner (2012), Determining the natural length of the current interglacial, Nature Geosci, advance online publication, doi:10.1038/ngeo1358. [online] Available from: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/ngeo1358.html (Accessed 28 August 2013)
 
2013-08-27 10:14:54 PM  

Damnhippyfreak: You are cherry-picking 8 years instead of your original claim about 10 years, as well as ignoring that Jon Snow's point was explicitly about "deeper (rather than upper most) ocean". Hiding from the original argument isn't as effective as you may think.


Check out the date for his original "decade" claim, and also check out the region of his 2005-2013 claim. It's even worse than that.

The data from the latter are from the North Atlantic only.

For the former, I thought it was a little weird that he would include a screenshot of the website- I mean, why do that? Then I looked at the chart he was claiming as inclusive of the "last decade" and it was noticeably lacking a prominent recent uptick that I knew was in the actual data. So I looked more closely and saw that his graph was a couple of years old.

So not only did he nick the graph from someone else- because let's face it, he's not going to go to NOAA, download the data, and plot his own, much less do a linear regression on them- he also is going around posting someone else's screenshot from years ago. Bizarre.
 
Displayed 35 of 35 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report