I can see were going round and round in circles here, care to get back "on topic"
Bare in mind my opening post, I don't make ANY claims, just pose a few questions.
So how would we cope with another LIA, assuming it happens as the Russians predict?
Project Astrometria:Global Cooling until 2100?
- Thread starter Haig
- Start date
- Status
I can see were going round and round in circles here, care to get back "on topic"
Bare in mind my opening post, I don't make ANY claims, just pose a few questions.
So how would we cope with another LIA, assuming it happens as the Russians predict?
shadron
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2005
- Messages
- 5,918
Not to be too flippant, but I've heard that 85% thing somewhere before. Browne?
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Assuming that some weird physics happens and another Little Ice Age happens then we would cope with a LIA mostly by dying as the low termperatures kill off crops.
Of course we have a proven method of preventing an LIA - pump more GHGs into the atmosphere.
macdoc
Philosopher
You exaggerate - the LIA was nowhere near the swing of temps that would entail.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/a-linkage-between-the-lia-and-gulf-stream/
It's not the dark ages and we haven't ( as yet ) killed off 90% of the population of North South and Central America to allow reforestation and while there COULD be a quantity of large scale volcanoes active at once.....signs are not encouraging on that front.
The nearest analogue to what IS coming is millions of years ago when global temps were 4-6 degrees C higher, and we have a high likelihood of surpassing that range.
Now were the Gulf Stream to stall for a few decades, say due to rapid Greenland melt and loss of the thermohaline circulation......the picture is pretty bleak for Northern Europe and British Isles agriculture.
Do you feel lucky......
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/a-linkage-between-the-lia-and-gulf-stream/
It's not the dark ages and we haven't ( as yet ) killed off 90% of the population of North South and Central America to allow reforestation and while there COULD be a quantity of large scale volcanoes active at once.....signs are not encouraging on that front.
The nearest analogue to what IS coming is millions of years ago when global temps were 4-6 degrees C higher, and we have a high likelihood of surpassing that range.
Now were the Gulf Stream to stall for a few decades, say due to rapid Greenland melt and loss of the thermohaline circulation......the picture is pretty bleak for Northern Europe and British Isles agriculture.
Do you feel lucky......
The only place I came across it, with regard to predicting extreme weather events, was here:
http://www.weatheraction.com/pages/pv.asp?p=wact5&fsize=0
Sure, it wouldn't be easy but we don't have to die in huge numbers, if we prepare in advance and with the help of modern methods and technology.
History can give us a few lessons too:
Modelling Little Ice Age-type impacts
The Little Ice Age (LIA) was the most recent period during which glaciers maintained an expanded position on most parts of the globe, whereas their fronts oscillated about in advanced positions (Grove, 2001). The LIA was a simultaneous, world-wide phenomenon which nonetheless allowed for considerable regional and local variation.
In the Alps, three phases of maximum glacier extension are distinguished: the first one around 1385, the second one in the mid-seventeenth century, and the third one around 1860 (Holzhauser, 2002). Wanner (2000) coined the term of “Little Ice Agetype events” (LIATE) to designate the three far-reaching glacier advances known from the last millennium. Each of the three LIATE was the outcome of a specific combination of seasonal patterns of temperature and precipitation (Luterbacher et al., 2000).
There is no single, long-term climatic trend which agrees with the advanced position of glaciers during the LIA. A multitude of interacting seasonal patterns of temperature and precipitation either positively or negatively affected the mass-balance of glaciers.
Extended cold spells during the winter half-year (October through March or April) were the ear-marking feature of climate throughout the LIA: Severe winters were more frequent and more severe, both in terms of duration and coldness, during the period of the LIA compared to the Medieval Warm Period and the twentieth century global warming.
However, the cold and dryness of winters did not significantly affect the mass balance of glaciers (Holzhauser and Zumb¨uhl, 1988). Far-reaching advances occurred when very cold springs and autumns coincided with chilly and wet mid-summers. The last “year without a summer” occurred in 1816, but many more of them are documented during the previous part of the millennium. They were the crucial elements underlying the LIATE. Most, if not all of them, were triggered by volcanic eruptions in the tropics, which generated a globe-girdling veil of volcanic dust (Harington, 1992). The spatial dimension of years without a summer was usually limited to mainland Europe north of the Alps, stretching from the Parisian Basin in the West to the Russian border in the East.
Conditions in the west of France, Ireland,Iceland and Russia were usually better, whereas those in the Mediterranean were fundamentally different (Luterbacher et al., 2002, 2004). The effect of years without a summer were counterbalanced from time to time by clusters of warm and dry summers (e.g., in the 1720s) which caused melting-back on the glaciers.
Under the conditions of the Little Ice Age climate, two kinds of impacts were detrimental for agriculture in western and central Europe. Long wet spells during the harvest period had the most devastating impact. Continuous rains lowered the flour content of the grains and made them vulnerable to mold infections and attacks of grain weevil (Sitophilus granarius) (Kaplan, 1976). Huge losses caused by insects and fungi during winter storage lead to surges of grain prices in the subsequent spring.
These effects can be hardly assessed today, let alone under the conditions of an Early Modern economy.
Besides long spells of rain in midsummer, cold springs did most harm to grain
crops. From present-day agro-meteorological analyses it is known that grain yields depend on sufficient warmth and moisture in April (Hanus and Aimiller, 1978). Inversely,this implies that crops suffered from dry and cold springs, which were frequent during the Little Ice Age. An extended snow-cover was particularly harmful. When the snow cover lasted for several months until March or April, winter grains were attacked by the fungus Fusarium Nivale.
Peasants often ploughed the choked plants down and seeded spring grains in order to have some compensation for the lost crop (Pfister, 2005).
Considering the vulnerability of the main sources of food – using both present and historical knowledge – it turned out that a given set of specific sequences of weather spells over the agricultural year was likely to affect all sources of food at the same time leaving little margin for substitution. This model of a worst-case crop failure and,inversely, of a year of plenty has the properties mentioned in Table 1.
Table 1 summarizes the impact of adverse temperature and precipitation patterns on grain, dairy forage and vine production during the critical periods of the grain harvest year. Prolonged wet spells at sowing time in autumn reduced the amount of area sown and lowered the nitrogen content of the soil. Cold spells in September and October lessened the sugar content of vine-must. Cold periods in March and April of the subsequent year decreased the volumes of the grain harvest and dairy forage production.
Wet mid-summers affected all sources of food production. Most importantly, the simultaneous occurrence of rainy autumns with cold springs and wet mid-summers in subsequent years had a cumulative impact on agricultural production. The same combination of seasonal patterns largely contributed to triggering far-reaching advances of glaciers.
The economically adverse combination of climatic patterns is labelled Little
Ice Age-type Impacts (LIATIMP) (Pfister, 2005). This parameter yields a yardstick to directly assess the severity of climate impacts whereas other parameters such as grain prices and demographic data are also the result of economic, social, microbiological,physiological and political factors.
http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/2/123/2006/cpd-2-123-2006-print.pdf
I was thinking that the electrification of Africa, with a dozen or so coal fired power stations would be the way to go. Who knows, maybe the GHG may help to shorten the new LIA.
Why?
Sorry, clearly my mistake in not giving you a proper answer, not deliberate!
"Do I understand the meaning of statistically insignificant, yes or no?"
Yes, I do and your right of course to pull me up on it but these are Prof Jones words “the trend this time is negative (-0.12 per decade)” giving a cooling trend from 2002 to the present.
I know from reading the leaked emails he and his colleagues were quite surprised by that statistically insignificant negative figure. My bad.
"Really? More so than all the solar and climate scientists that disagree with him?"
No, there are many excellent experts in the same field that disagree with him. He has many experts that support his views (a few in his field) and someone has to be first in a new discovery, right? I happen to think it might be his turn!
Here are the panel at WeatherAction’s international conference, Imperial College London Oct 28th 2009:
Hans Schreuder Analytic Chemist of ILMCD, Peter Gill - Physicist, Fellow of the Energy Institute and Member Inst of Physics, John Sanderson Physicist Pres Royal College Of Science Assoc, Piers Corbyn Astrophysicist founder WeatherAction, Prof Phillip Hutchinson Energy expert, Dr David Bellamy naturalist, Gabe Rychert Climate Realists.com. Joe D’Aleo of American Meteorological Soc & Dr Kirill Kuzanyan Solar Physicist (Moscow/Beijing) contributed by live Web-link
They all support him.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
That is silly, you have error bars on the other methods that vary in size, dendrochronology is not good at temperature reconstructions, but can give you other data.
Why don't you like the other data methods?
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
Yep.
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2006
- Messages
- 15,948
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2007
- Messages
- 13,208
I went through your list of "experts" and searched Google scholar for climate related papers. I couldn't confirm a single climate related paper in a top tier journal by any of them.
When you see a claim on a blog that someone is an expert, you should not just accept it uncritically. Go out and research what they have actually published on the topic. Calling people who have no relevant scholarly credentials “experts” in a specific field of science is a common tactic from those promoting woo and you fell for it with a resounding thud.
Not me, I'm just a "layperson" and how can I know? Others can and do eg. on this skeptics site, (I know you won't like it) and they have experts too.
http://www.climategate.com/
You seem to be an expert in itAh, another example of JAQing off
Thanks for the tips. Yes, there are a lot of charlatans around.
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2007
- Messages
- 13,208
The other issue with amplification is that it necessarily involves a large positive feedback. Any skeptic should start hearing alarm bells when they hear someone insist some unspecified negative feedback will remove the effect they don’t want to see while simultaneously insisting there is some other large unspecified positive feedback behind some alternate explanation.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Interesting conference
- A total of 9 participants (plus some kind of audience).
- Only 1 of which (Joe D’Aleo) has any connection to climate science.
- Turning up at a confrence indicates but need not mean that they support him.
! Weather Actions news page has a list of 5 presentations in 1 session. A couple of them ignore the physics of greenhouse gases to state that CO2 is not a driver of global warming (which is not happening anyway)
Last edited:
lomiller
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2007
- Messages
- 13,208
Even that one is only loosely connected to climate science since he isn’t a working scientist. Most of the hits that come up for him are political reports/statements not peer reviewed research.
http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?as...&as_yhi=&as_sdt=1.&as_sdtp=on&as_sdts=5&hl=en
They didn't have to come! and these were only the ones on the stage, I expect there were other "experts" in the audience.
I get the feeling you would have preferred him to be presenting the conference on his own, then it would have been much easier for you and the rest of his critics, to rubbish him?
He does seem to be gathering support post climategate!
Interesting conference
But now we at least have your assertion that 8 (eight) people in the world support Piers Corbyn
- A total of 9 participants (plus some kind of audience).
- Only 1 of which (Joe D’Aleo) has any connection to climate science.
- Turning up at a confrence indicates but need not mean that they support him.
Weather Actions news page has a list of 5 presentations in 1 session. A couple of them ignore the physics of greenhouse gases to state that CO2 is not a driver of global warming (which is not happening anyway)
see my reply to ben m above.
I don't think they are ignoring the physics of GHG regarding C02. Just saying, that it trails the warming, by some 800 years, not driving the warming. They are not alone in saying this, is that not right?
Last edited:
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
They are right in that the ends of the ices ages were foillowed by increases in CO2 about 800-1000 years later. The increase was from the release of CO2 from the warming seas. This does not mean that CO2 is not a driver of global temperatures. What it means is that in the case of ice ages, the warming (and cooling at the start) was from a variety of causes.
Scientists have been studying the greenhouse effect for about 100 years. The physical facts of GHG are:
- The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has an effect on the global temperature. Double CO2 and global temperature goes up. Halve CO2 and global temperature goes down. This climate sensitivity is aout 3 C.
- We have measured that the amount of CO2 has increased by 35% since the 1750's. Half of this happened before 1973, the rest after 1973.
- We have determined that most of this increase is form the burining of fossil fuels by looking at the ration of carbon isotopes. Human beings are the primary burners of fossil fuels.
- We have measured that the global temperatures have increased since the 1750's.
- CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?
- Does CO2 always correlate with temperature (and if not, why not?)
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
And talking about the Little Ice Age:
What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels? has a description of the results from a just released paper On the Effect of a New Grand Minimum of Solar Activity on the Future Climate on Earth (Feulner & Rahmstorf 2010) (a PDF) that uses an actual climate model to do the predictions rather than whatever the Russians used.
What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels? has a description of the results from a just released paper On the Effect of a New Grand Minimum of Solar Activity on the Future Climate on Earth (Feulner & Rahmstorf 2010) (a PDF) that uses an actual climate model to do the predictions rather than whatever the Russians used.
- Status