Or rather the warming of DO events are rapid, and the cooling tends to be slower.
Comment on Are human influences on the climate really small? by ulriclyons
↧
↧
Comment on Are human influences on the climate really small? by Jim D
Spence_UK, Royer has an interesting graphic that takes into account the general solar increase and changing CO2 levels as the main forcing terms, and the result is a surprisingly large offsetting effect between a weaker sun and more CO2 in the distant past. This graphic also illustrates that 5 W/m2 is a large change, given that 250 million years ago we also had icy conditions. Looking at projected changes for the future in this longer perspective is sobering.
↧
Comment on Are human influences on the climate really small? by ianl8888
I genuinely appreciate Andy Lacis’ contribution (he *does* try), although the heart of it seems to be another attempt at explaining the current atmospheric temperature stasis – a “blob” of upwelled very cold deep ocean water is currently equilibrating with ambient surface temperature and when that’s done, the icecaps will continue their inexorable melt
From this, one can infer that that the abysses are not actually heating (another stasis explanation). For this I’m grateful …
As for no pole ice if CO2 levels > 450ppm, that’s just wrong. There have been glacials as measured from the ice cores where CO2 > 800ppm
The issue as I understand it with increased water vapour from CO2-induced 1oC temperature rise is that there has been very little to almost no increase in global humidity as measured by satellite since 1979
I’m an empiricist.
↧
Comment on Are human influences on the climate really small? by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
JimD, “Ice Ages are triggered by albedo changes that initially occur with no other change in forcing, just orbital effects.”
The orbital effect is a change in the distribution of forcing from 65N maximum solar to just about anything else. 65N solar maximum is the point where land based ice has the least chance of survival. Since most interglacials tend to last about 1/2 of a precessional cycle, getting into an ice age is pretty easy but getting out of one generally requires a little extra boost from obliquity, at least for the past million years. None of the theories completely explain every glacial/interglacial transition, duration or depth (height) of temperature change. That would imply there is considerable internal variability that needs to be considered.
funny how that works.
↧
Comment on Are human influences on the climate really small? by Jim D
Turbulent Eddie, in fact you could subtract much less than 5 W/m2 to get an Ice Age. The orbitally forced albedo changes translate to very weak forcing changes in the global average sense, and then feedbacks take over and it becomes hard to separate forcing from feedback by the time you have a full Ice Age.
↧
↧
Comment on Are human influences on the climate really small? by nickels
Interesting post and discussion.
↧
Comment on Week in review: policy and politics edition by Jim D
You linked the article by Steyer against the Kochs. He is very much for the average American that according to polls has a very different viewpoint from the Republican congressional bloc when it comes to whether climate policies are needed.
↧
Comment on Are human influences on the climate really small? by Don Monfort
“The issue as I understand it with increased water vapour from CO2-induced 1oC temperature rise is that there has been very little to almost no increase in global humidity as measured by satellite since 1979″
Andy forgot to mention that. Maybe it’s not important. Perhaps 35 years is not enough time to expect a fast feedback to be detectable. You never know about evaporation. Sometimes a wet swimsuit will dry in 10 minutes and sometimes you can be shivering for a freaking hour or two.
I asked Dr. Vaughn Pratt to expound on this issue and he said he hadn’t thought about it much. So again, it must not be important.
↧
Comment on Are human influences on the climate really small? by Turbulent Eddie
Turbulent Eddie, in fact you could subtract much less than 5 W/m2 to get an Ice Age. The orbitally forced albedo changes translate to very weak forcing changes in the global average sense, and then feedbacks take over and it becomes hard to separate forcing from feedback by the time you have a full Ice Age.
If Arctic summer temperatures are well enough above freezing, it doesn’t matter what the radiative forcing of the earth is, there will be no ice age.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate change availability cascade by Climate change availability cascade | Enjeux énergies et environnement
↧
Comment on Are human influences on the climate really small? by Jim D
TE, true, it is only below about 300 ppm that it is so easy to push us into an Ice Age. It gets much harder at 400 ppm because of the general warmth and its polar amplification, and by the time you reach 500 ppm, what little ice we have left will also be going away. The polar surfaces warm several times faster than the global mean.
↧
Comment on Climate change availability cascade by George Devries Klein, PhD, PG, FGSA
I would say you called it exactly right. Uneducated political leaders who think they know everything or are the new messiah or the messiah’s apostles are driving ‘climate change’ as described for one reason – total control. The UN (See Agenda 21) wants to reduce humanity to serfdom, and our current administration is only too glad to help them. We are in danger of returning to the Medieval “know they place” concept of governingby the UN, and left-leaning liberals have their say.
↧
Comment on Climate change availability cascade by kim
The fear and guilt is making us stupid. It is irrational, and powerful, the madness of the herd.
============
↧
↧
Comment on Are human influences on the climate really small? by harrytwinotter
If you want to be taken seriously, lay off the ad hominems.
“still emerging from the LIA” citations please. I am not even sure what this means.
“yet to reach the levels of the MWP” citations please.
“Greenland today evidences” Seriously? Are you claiming Greenland is a proxy for the global average temperature?
↧
Comment on Climate change availability cascade by George Turner
I think it’s very good, and avoids the obvious parallels to the way primitive superstitions or stories about angry gods self-reinforce, which some might find too offensive.
I wonder how many people get overwhelmed with fear of climate change and try to unwind and refocus with a December trip to Cancun? There is definitely a disconnect somewhere.
↧
Comment on Are human influences on the climate really small? by harrytwinotter
“for the pause you say doesn’t exist” Building a straw man is not good for a discussion.
“In even simpler terms, if the heat isn’t missing what are they looking for it?” What does that mean?
↧
Comment on Climate change availability cascade by PeteBonk
There has been a bit of talk here at Climate.Etc.about the responsibility (or lack thereof) of scientific societies like the APS and ACS and their policy positions on global warming, and the repercussions on the overall science community as “the hiatus” goes on and on and the credibility of these organization necessarily and rightly sinks. What of the MSM, the 5th Estate, as being a watch dog and a check on the government? When did the media set aside the “All The President’s Men” dogged pursuit of the truth to become guard and lap dogs of the status quo and “consensus”? Our hostess if far too polite to call them what they really have become.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate change availability cascade by NW
Are you riffing on “information cascade?” I know them well, but the “availability cascade” is new jargon to me.
↧
Comment on Are human influences on the climate really small? by Gina Becker
I think the increases in amount of radiation the CO2 can absorb in its wavelength absorption bands is exaggerated even in the graph you show. The band widening mechanism is an alarmist’s false hope. Essentially all the radiation from the earth’s surface that can be absorbed in the GHG wavelength range is being absorbed in the thick layers of GHG absorbing gases now.
Either way–with the scenario in the graph you show, or with full saturation–this brings up the point of how much changes in the earth’s emissivity, due to land-use changes, can affect the global temperature. Since the current CO2 and H2O are absorbing nearly all the radiation reflected from the earth’s surface in their absorption ranges now, a small change in the emissivity of the earth–which would cause a change in the amount of radiation sent back to the atmosphere–will have a much, much greater influence on global temperature than changes in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
↧
Comment on Climate change availability cascade by hillrj
My personal opinion is that the piece uses the term “climate change” too often. The community needs to clarify what the actual topic is. Reduction in asthma-causing air pollution may be a worthy goal, regardless of climate change. AFIK there is no linkage of asthma to climate change itself. But it is believed that certain regions have climates beneficial to lung complaints. The climate community could help the President by pointing this out so that he could relocate his family to such areas. I hope that Malia doesnt have to wait until current CO2 reduction efforts pay off. I was a childhood asthma sufferer myself and know that it is not a simple issue.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
