Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[Anarchon]

My understanding is that we are technically still within an interglacial period of the Quaternary period ice age. Yes, we are in an ice age because we still have large ice caps covering both poles. The end of the last glacial period was 'only' 12,000 years ago during which period a large ice cap was sat over most of Scotland and the rest of England & Wales was subject to permafrost conditions (the Loch Lomond stadial part of the Devensian glacial period 110,000 - 10,000 years ago). There is evidence to suggest that rapid de-glaciation at the end of this period took place within a mere 50 years! To any humans around at that time it would have felt like someone had switched an oven on overnight! Our present concerns about possible AGW doesn't even compare. Considering that the average glacial period lasts 10s of thousands if not 100s of thousands of years, we are only just out of the woods. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that Holocene temeratures following de-glaciation in Europe and North America peaked around 8,000 years ago (the Holocene optimum) where temperatures were on average warmer than today. The Ipswichian interglacial period circa 130,000 to 114,000 years ago, which was comparable to the present Holocene period was probably even warmer than the present Holocene. I think we underestimate the power of nature far too easily.

[Wildcat]

My understanding is that we are technically still within an interglacial period of the Quaternary period ice age. Yes, we are in an ice age because we still have large ice caps covering both poles. The end of the last glacial period was 'only' 12,000 years ago during which period a large ice cap was sat over most of Scotland and the rest of England & Wales was subject to permafrost conditions (the Loch Lomond stadial part of the Devensian glacial period 110,000 - 10,000 years ago). There is evidence to suggest that rapid de-glaciation at the end of this period took place within a mere 50 years! To any humans around at that time it would have felt like someone had switched an oven on overnight! Our present concerns about possible AGW doesn't even compare. Considering that the average glacial period lasts 10s of thousands if not 100s of thousands of years, we are only just out of the woods. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that Holocene temeratures following de-glaciation in Europe and North America peaked around 8,000 years ago (the Holocene optimum) where temperatures were on average warmer than today. The Ipswichian interglacial period circa 130,000 to 114,000 years ago, which was comparable to the present Holocene period was probably even warmer than the present Holocene. I think we underestimate the power of nature far too easily.

 

Each of those periods however can be explained by a combination of astronomical cycles, atmospheric composition, plate tectonics, and ocean currents. As Convert pointed out earlier CO2 rises occurred after the rises in temperature, and sustained and fed the increases.

 

The situation today however has no external factors influencing it, Solar energy is if anything reduced over the last 35 years and yet temperatures are rising. The only thing that can account for the current rise is Carbon emissions. Every other causative factor is either neutral or in decline.

 

You might find this of interest:

Edited February 10, 2010 by Wildcat

[JIbbo]

wildcat, how do you respond to this paper in Science...

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/11/new-paper-in-science-sea-level-81000-years-ago-1-meter-higher-while-co2-was-lower/

 

Sea level 81,000 years ago was 1 meter higher while CO2 was lower.

 

Sea-level rises and falls as Earth’s giant ice sheets shrink and grow. It has been thought that sea level around 81,000 years ago—well into the last glacial period—was 15 to 20 meters below that of today and, thus, that the ice sheets were more extensive. Dorale et al. (p. 860; see the Perspective by Edwards) now challenge this view. A speleothem that has been intermittently submerged in a cave on the island of Mallorca was dated to show that, historically, sea level was more than a meter above its present height. This data implies that temperatures were as high as or higher than now, even though the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was much lower !

 

Ermmmm............

 

so much for historical links between co2 & temperature !

[Phanerothyme]

Then ...

 

 

 

Well the NOAA isn't the only institute on the planet that studies the phenomenon, is it?

 

And their data is from direct observation, so isn't likely to go back more than 300 years in total.

 

From a climatological perspective, that's really not a long time ago.

[Lockjaw]

Well the NOAA isn't the only institute on the planet that studies the phenomenon, is it?

 

And their data is from direct observation, so isn't likely to go back more than 300 years in total.

 

From a climatological perspective, that's really not a long time ago.

 

Hi Phanerothyme.

 

I'm not sure, from the above, that you understood the point of my post. Please forgive me if I'm wrong and you did.

 

You ask in post 1433 if 50 years is enough time to identify a trend (indeed, you reinforce that point in the post I quote above by suggesting that 300 years is too short) yet previously, in post 1429, you referred to a trend in the El Niño cycle observed over a much shorter period of time.

[Wildcat]

The el Nino and la Nina cycles are quite natural and periodic. What appears to be happening is that el Nino is strengthening in effect and la Nina is diminishing, both quite quickly. This is a recent phenomenon AFAIK.

 

Are you sure of this?

 

I appreciate I am just looking at the numbers but I can't see an obvious trend looking at the data on P23:

 

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf

[Wildcat]

wildcat, how do you respond to this paper in Science...

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/11/new-paper-in-science-sea-level-81000-years-ago-1-meter-higher-while-co2-was-lower/

 

Sea level 81,000 years ago was 1 meter higher while CO2 was lower.

 

Sea-level rises and falls as Earth’s giant ice sheets shrink and grow. It has been thought that sea level around 81,000 years ago—well into the last glacial period—was 15 to 20 meters below that of today and, thus, that the ice sheets were more extensive. Dorale et al. (p. 860; see the Perspective by Edwards) now challenge this view. A speleothem that has been intermittently submerged in a cave on the island of Mallorca was dated to show that, historically, sea level was more than a meter above its present height. This data implies that temperatures were as high as or higher than now, even though the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was much lower !

 

Ermmmm............

 

so much for historical links between co2 & temperature !

 

No one has ever claimed that CO2 is the only driver for temperature. Indeed I made that same point in the post 1447 immediately above your one.

 

So, I am not sure what your point is. Although Watts point would be obfuscation with a strawman argument.

 

On a related point, you might find this interesting on how Scientists are now coming to believe the IPCC report underestimates Sea level rises, because it did not factor in Ice sheet dynamics we now know more about.

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Working-out-future-sea-level-rise-from-the-past.html

Edited February 12, 2010 by Wildcat

[Phanerothyme]

Hi Phanerothyme.

 

I'm not sure, from the above, that you understood the point of my post. Please forgive me if I'm wrong and you did.

 

You ask in post 1433 if 50 years is enough time to identify a trend (indeed, you reinforce that point in the post I quote above by suggesting that 300 years is too short) yet previously, in post 1429, you referred to a trend in the El Niño cycle observed over a much shorter period of time.

 

I think I said "quickly" and "recently".

 

I think I'm correct in stating that the El Nino phenomenon has been in existence for some time - many thousands and indeed tens of thousands of years. What evidence exists (we are no longer talking about the NOAA contemporary atmospheric measurements) for this?

 

Does this evidence provide an accurate record of the intensity of the phenomenon?

 

If so, what are the observable trends? Has intensity of the phenomenon recently (last 300 years - concurrent with increased anthropogenic CO2 emissions) been high compared to a long time ago (10,000) years ago?

[Wildcat]

I think I said "quickly" and "recently".

 

I think I'm correct in stating that the El Nino phenomenon has been in existence for some time - many thousands and indeed tens of thousands of years. What evidence exists (we are no longer talking about the NOAA contemporary atmospheric measurements) for this?

 

Does this evidence provide an accurate record of the intensity of the phenomenon?

 

The Chemical composition of Coral records show it was in existence 125,000 years ago.

 

See answer to Q5

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/elnino/faq.html

 

If so, what are the observable trends? Has intensity of the phenomenon recently (last 300 years - concurrent with increased anthropogenic CO2 emissions) been high compared to a long time ago (10,000) years ago?

 

I am not sure about clear trends.

 

There is however work being done on modeling them that have been successful enough to be used for prediction.

 

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/elnino/faq.html#responsible

Edited February 12, 2010 by Wildcat

[top4718]

It is reported today that UK train fares are the highest in Europe. For a country that (when taxing us on green issues) wants to be the world leader on environmental policy and urges its citizens to use public transport I find this VERY hypocritical.