How to talk to an OSTRICH: Abrupt Climate Change

"Earth's Climate Changes Gradually... We Can Easily Adapt."
Maybe, maybe not... because sometimes climate goes over the edge, and quickly. Richard Alley describes the 10 degrees C jump in temperature seen in the ice core record as like "bungee jumping off the climate roller coaster" which we see him do, in person in New Zealand, and in computer graphics. Perhaps we'd better take out some insurance.

[geraldspezio]

"Perhaps we'd better take out some insurance."

PERHAPS WE SHOULD PAY A LAWYER & SUE SOMEBODY ABOUT SOMETHING BEFORE THE COURTHOUSE IS UNDER WATER?

LAWYERS NEED PAYING CLIENTS - UNTIL THE LIGHTS GO OUT.

[asmartmonkey]

I'm not as interested in debates as I am about the consequences. I'm already convinced that fossil fuels will be the end of us. Ecologically, economically or both. What we need is to work together to solve this problem instead of taking the easy road we're on now. Here's what Thomas Edison said almost 80 years ago: “I’d put my money on the sun and solar energy. What a source of power! I hope we don’t have to wait until oil and coal run out before we tackle that. I wish I had more years left.”

[Bellantoni]

Another way we know is what's called the fingerprint approach. If the warming was caused by something external to the planet, then both the stratosphere and troposphere would be getting warmer, if however AGW was correct the troposphere would warm due to the global heat trap and the stratosphere would be cooling and that's exactly what we find. The stratosphere is cooling.

[paziffy]

Because an ostrich is tall and thin, so the energy transfer from feet to head is very similar to that of the Eocene. Now if we drill into the ice cores, we find remnants of the lost Ostrichese language which we can use to communicate with modern ostriches. Obviously!

[stacase]

Trapped heat? You want us to believe that the Green House effect which mostly occurs in the stratosphere warms up the deep ocean without leaving a trace in the troposphere, sea surface temps or the next 700 meters.

Hiroshima bombs? The 0.9 w/m² is a calculated not measured metric. Trenberth's original Heat Budget didn't include the imbalance. Some one must have tapped him on the shoulder, "Psst! Kevin - The only way temperature will go up is if there's an imbalance, you should change it."

[Bellantoni]

Furthermore the heating effects would be most prevalent where the external rays are strongest: the equator. The current heat records and climate change is well known to be most prevalent where rays are dimmest: the polar regions. This is perfectly consistent with AGW where atmospheric change would gravitate towards those regions. The migration changes of the plant and animal kingdom are consistent with warming. The changes in the jet stream and it's new meandering trend, consistent with AGW.

We are already committed to a wild, wild, ride. We have awakened the tiger and want to prod it some more, when we need to be grabbing the tail.

[chicagogeorge]

I remember watching an AGU video with Dr Alley when he said that we don't see a record where the earth was very warm with low co2. A couple of weeks ago a paper was released from the GRL called "A warm Miocene climate at low atmospheric CO2 levels" showing co2 levels lower than the pre-industrial age, but with a global mean surface temperature of ∼17.8 °C. What gives? Not carbon feedback? No runaway warming?

[thgate]

The bungee rollar coaster is actually quite not a bad analogy. I've been trying to come up with a good, decent and simple model to explain tipping points for quite a while - but it's all too easy to make things too complicated.

[ttmallard]

Our global problem is like this, a full glacial cycle takes 100, 000-years and CO2 varies 100-ppm, from 180-280-ppm.

During all those ice-ages the maximum CO2 was 305±5-ppm, ok, we passed that about 1916 and since then added 100-ppm.

That's a glacial cycle in only 100-years and it's all ABOVE the highest CO2 value ever reached in a million years, acidifying the oceans 10-times faster than an extinction event.

We must exit the Steam Age for electrons, most grid power is for thermal end-uses not electricity so to switch will only take 5-years, maybe 2-months if it was a war.

[chicagogeorge]

Nothing about methane was mentioned in that paper, only that a difference in ocean circulation.

As for renewable energy, it it were just cheaper (solar and wind) and more reliable (wind). Even so, we currently consume 15 terawatts of energy annually on a global scale. By 2050 we will consume 30 terawatts. Even by then we can produce 50% of our global energy needs through renewables (which we wont even come close to that), 15 terawatts will still be fossil based.

[Quercuspalustris]

The name of the paper from the link below is called "Solar change and climate: an update in the light of the current exceptional solar minimum" from the Proceedings of the Royal Society. The first paragraph in the second section has to do with calculating the average amount of solar energy hitting the earth. Could you show me the flaws in the calculation? Or show me the weaknesses in the estimation?

[asmartmonkey]

Being the Miocene, I'm gonna guess "methane" gas, a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. Ozone depletion in the upper atmosphere will also result in additional warming? I know this: If we continue to deny climate change, and do nothing and the deniers are wrong, there is no upside. But the downside is unthinkable. If on the other hand we accept the theories and change our energy paradigm, and we are wrong, there is no downside. And the upside is cleaner and cheaper renewable energy.

[manwichstick]

"Don't worry you'll see in about the next ten years as we enter a maunder minimum."
Do your research, even if we enter a quiet sun period (which it looks like is unlikely) you only delay Earth warming by a few years.
No real significant impact, even if you are right.
Talk to your local university physics department.

[Bellantoni]

And natural fires have occurred abruptly in the past without any help from humans, so that too proves that the destruction of Iraq and Vietnam were natural.

This video was about how co2 causes climatic change, other videos Alley makes demonstrate how the co2 induced warming of the past 150 years has come from our industry.

"It's Us"

[meercatdotcom]

Would you prefer the peer reviewed science from the Koch brothers or Exxon Mobil?

[stacase]

Lag in the system? Yes there should be a lag in the system, The hottest part of the day is an hour or two past noon, and the hottest part of the summer is maybe a month after the summer solstice. You guys want me to believe the lag from the Green House effect is 40 years or more.

Big lag in sea level? I haven't heard that one. Did you make that up or do you have a source?

[Bellantoni]

60's were hotter than the 50's, the 70's were hotter than the 60's, the 80's were hotter than the 70's, the 90's were hotter than the 80's, the 00's were hotter than the 90's. Since 1996 the arctic has decreased by 3.3 million sq km. Sea level rises by 1.70 mm a year, co2 rises 2 ppm a year compared to just 1/10, 000 ppm from all other natural sources. There have been record draughts, wild fires, floods, and snow fall all over the world all consistent with warming.

[Quercuspalustris]

That's like saying: Because the population level of humans abruptly changed in the past (due to natural phenomenon like plague), when it changes today (because of genocide or war) it's perfectly natural. You're saying, "Because past changes have been natural, it's impossible for any future changes to be unnatural". That's not logical. It's also like saying, "Because atomic warfare has never happened in the last million years, it can never happen".

[stacase]

I think Alley just wanted everyone to know that the grant money he receives for climate research has allowed him to take nice vacations and do fun stuff.