Climate science denial being taught at Carleton University

[lomiller]

A pointless question. The glaciation phase may happen 'sometime in the next few thousand years'

The best answer in the literature is that without human CO2 emissions the next chance at a glaciation is ~18K years away but that could be just a near miss with the next chance after that being quite a bit farther out (35K years? sounds familiar but I don't recall the number). It seems likely that the 18K year ice age is already off the table but I'm not familiar with any peer reviewed research affirming or refuting this.


Since there is limited peer reviewed evidence for or against the entire question isn't really something that should be the subject of an introductory undergraduate course. As you point out it's also somewhat irrelevant. I suppose you could ask it as an exercise in literature review to asses just what the state of the literature is on the subject, but in that case what you are looking for is that they correctly assess the literature (something mhaze can't do to begin with)

 

[Trakar]

The best answer in the literature is that without human CO2 emissions the next chance at a glaciation is ~18K years away but that could be just a near miss with the next chance after that being quite a bit farther out (35K years? sounds familiar but I don't recall the number). It seems likely that the 18K year ice age is already off the table but I'm not familiar with any peer reviewed research affirming or refuting this.


Since there is limited peer reviewed evidence for or against the entire question isn't really something that should be the subject of an introductory undergraduate course. As you point out it's also somewhat irrelevant. I suppose you could ask it as an exercise in literature review to asses just what the state of the literature is on the subject, but in that case what you are looking for is that they correctly assess the literature (something mhaze can't do to begin with)

http://news.ufl.edu/2012/01/09/glacial-patterns/

Fate of fossil fuel CO2 in geologic time - http://melts.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer.2005.fate_co2.pdf

Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0804/0804.1126.pdf

What Happens AFTER Global Warming?
http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/what-happens-after-global-warming-25887608

There are more I just had these handy.

 

[lomiller]

http://news.ufl.edu/2012/01/09/glacial-patterns/

Fate of fossil fuel CO2 in geologic time - http://melts.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer.2005.fate_co2.pdf

Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0804/0804.1126.pdf

What Happens AFTER Global Warming?
http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/what-happens-after-global-warming-25887608

There are more I just had these handy.

Thanks they mostly seem to confirm what I said in my previous post with a couple corrections. There are ice age attempts at 18K year and 50K year (not 35) and the 18 K year glaciation is probably off the table already. The 50K years is more questionable, but if we keep emitting CO2 it will probably not occur either.

The first like I have issue with though. It says there would have been a glaciation 15oo years from now which AFAIK is outdated, most papers in the last 10-20 years have said cooling but no glaciation there, with the soonest chance being the 18Kyear one mentioned above

 

[mhaze]

Well, that lunatic fringe radical environmentalist nonsense about CO2 capture in your Hansen "peer reviewed article", is not gonna happen. And those coal plans will continue to be built.

So which is it? Good or bad? I'd like to miss out on the 10,000 year White Christmas.

 

[Corsair 115]

I'd like to miss out on the 10,000 year White Christmas.

Really? You plan on living for another 10,000 years? Do you have some portrait of yourself stashed away in an attic that ages instead of you?

 

[Trakar]

Thanks they mostly seem to confirm what I said in my previous post with a couple corrections. There are ice age attempts at 18K year and 50K year (not 35) and the 18 K year glaciation is probably off the table already. The 50K years is more questionable, but if we keep emitting CO2 it will probably not occur either.

The first like I have issue with though. It says there would have been a glaciation 15oo years from now which AFAIK is outdated, most papers in the last 10-20 years have said cooling but no glaciation there, with the soonest chance being the 18Kyear one mentioned above

Well, I suppose we could ask them ourselves. One thing I've found over the last few years is that more and more of publishing leaders in the fields of the climate sciences are willing, and in some cases eager, to explain and engage a curious public. This, of course, is a recent study and we probably should look at the details of the study which the article is based on.

Determining the natural length of the current interglacial - http://www.deas.harvard.edu/climate/seminars/pdfs/Tzedakis_etal_2012.pdf
Abstract - full paper at link above

No glacial inception is projected to occur at the current
atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 390 ppmv (ref. 1). Indeed,
model experiments suggest that in the current orbital
configuration—which is characterized by a weak minimum in
summer insolation—glacial inception would require CO2 concentrations
below preindustrial levels of 280 ppmv (refs 2–4).
However, the precise CO2 threshold4–6 as well as the timing
of the hypothetical next glaciation7 remain unclear. Past interglacials
can be used to draw analogies with the present,
provided their duration is known. Here we propose that the
minimum age of a glacial inception is constrained by the onset
of bipolar-seesaw climate variability, which requires ice-sheets
large enough to produce iceberg discharges that disrupt the
ocean circulation. We identify the bipolar seesaw in ice-core
and North Atlantic marine records by the appearance of a
distinct phasing of interhemispheric climate and hydrographic
changes and ice-rafted debris. The glacial inception during
Marine Isotope sub-Stage 19c, a close analogue for the present
interglacial, occurred near the summer insolation minimum,
suggesting that the interglacial was not prolonged by subdued
radiative forcing7. Assuming that ice growth mainly responds
to insolation and CO2 forcing, this analogy suggests that the
end of the current interglacial would occur within the next
1500 years, if atmospheric CO2 concentrations did not exceed
2405 ppmv.

The author's positions seem a bit more qualified than the article writer's.

 

[mhaze]

Of course, as Freeman Dysan noted, all that is needed to keep the CO2 in the atmosphere from growing is to increase biomass in the soil by 1/100 inch per year. In other words, more topsoil. Given the rates at which biology is progressing,it seems that within a few decades we could do things of this sort. This indicates to me that the "measure of CO2" taken as the fraction in the atmosphere isn't even the right one, but just a convenient one. Since more topsoil is obviously "good" it may come to be that the question is at what level the topsoil needs to be decreased....

 

[bobc]

Of course, as Freeman Dysan noted, all that is needed to keep the CO2 in the atmosphere from growing is to increase biomass in the soil by 1/100 inch per year. In other words, more topsoil. Given the rates at which biology is progressing,it seems that within a few decades we could do things of this sort. This indicates to me that the "measure of CO2" taken as the fraction in the atmosphere isn't even the right one, but just a convenient one. Since more topsoil is obviously "good" it may come to be that the question is at what level the topsoil needs to be decreased....

Oh dear, poor old Dyson. He is one of those formerly great scientists who go a bit nutty in their old age.

A 1/100 inch is one of those sneaky figures designed to mask the actual scale. We would need to sequester more than 30 billion tonnes of carbon annually just to stay level.

Unfortunately, we are removing biomass as fast as we can. To suggest this can be trivially reversed is a delusion.

 

[mhaze]

Oh dear, poor old Dyson. He is one of those formerly great scientists who go a bit nutty in their old age.

A 1/100 inch is one of those sneaky figures designed to mask the actual scale. We would need to sequester more than 30 billion tonnes of carbon annually just to stay level.

Unfortunately, we are removing biomass as fast as we can. To suggest this can be trivially reversed is a delusion.

So you agree with Harris, that thinking we control climate is ridiculously arrogant?

 

[Twiler]

So you agree with Harris, that thinking we control climate is ridiculously arrogant?

If we could control the climate, there wouldn't be a problem. The issue is that our actions are affecting the environment in a way that will ultimately cause problems.

Stepping on thin ice breaks the ice, but that's not exactly 'controlling' the ice.

 

[Mikemcc]

So you agree with Harris, that thinking we control climate is ridiculously arrogant?

Nope, Harris is wrong. We clearly control climate, we're driving it at full tilt.

 

[eerok]

So you agree with Harris, that thinking we control climate is ridiculously arrogant?

Shilling for corporate interests and pretending that it's science is ridiculously arrogant. And it never works.

 

[mhaze]

If we could control the climate, there wouldn't be a problem.

Nope, Harris is wrong. We clearly control climate, we're driving it at full tilt.

Where's that consensus gone to now?

 

[Twiler]

Where's that consensus gone to now?

What consensus are you referring to?

 

[mhaze]

What consensus are you referring to?

You know, that consensus of scientists that we're controlling the climate. I assume that's right, since Harris believes otherwise, and he's wrong because he's a Denier, right?

 

[Twiler]

You know, that consensus of scientists that we're controlling the climate. I assume that's right, since Harris believes otherwise, and he's wrong because he's a Denier, right?

Which specific scientists are you referring to?

 

[mhaze]

Oh dear, poor old Dyson. He is one of those formerly great scientists who go a bit nutty in their old age.

A 1/100 inch is one of those sneaky figures designed to mask the actual scale. We would need to sequester more than 30 billion tonnes of carbon annually just to stay level.

Unfortunately, we are removing biomass as fast as we can. To suggest this can be trivially reversed is a delusion.

So we're not controlling climate?

 

[Mikemcc]

Where's that consensus gone to now?

if you had a sensible arguement about the science you'd be interesting, now you're just going into Bishadi-land.

 

[Twiler]

Mhaze is completely wrong; Global warming definitely isn't occurring, and the scientific community is engaged in a gigantic conspiracy to conceal it.

I don't know why Mhaze believes such gibberish.

 

[mhaze]

Mhaze is completely wrong; Global warming definitely isn't occurring, and the scientific community is engaged in a gigantic conspiracy to conceal it.

I don't know why Mhaze believes such gibberish.

Now, that all makes no sense whatsoever.

But if you look at this thread you will see devout Believers of the Faith of Global Warming seriously discussing both warming, and cooling as the results of man's evil actions. So you just need to get with the program, buckaroo. It's "climate change" now. Haven't you heard?