'I Feel Duped on Climate Change'

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2004/05mar_arctic/

A Chilling Possibility
By disturbing a massive ocean current, melting Arctic sea ice might trigger colder weather in Europe and North America.

March 5, 2004: Global warming could plunge North America and Western Europe into a deep freeze, possibly within only a few decades.

That's the paradoxical scenario gaining credibility among many climate scientists. The thawing of sea ice covering the Arctic could disturb or even halt large currents in the Atlantic Ocean. Without the vast heat that these ocean currents deliver--comparable to the power generation of a million nuclear power plants--Europe's average temperature would likely drop 5 to 10°C (9 to 18°F), and parts of eastern North America would be chilled somewhat less. Such a dip in temperature would be similar to global average temperatures toward the end of the last ice age roughly 20,000 years ago.

Some scientists believe this shift in ocean currents could come surprisingly soon--within as little as 20 years, according to Robert Gagosian, president and director of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. Others doubt it will happen at all. Even so, the Pentagon is taking notice. Andrew Marshall, a veteran Defense Department planner, recently released an unclassified report detailing how a shift in ocean currents in the near future could compromise national security.

"It's difficult to predict what will happen," cautions Donald Cavalieri, a senior scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, "because the Arctic and North Atlantic are very complex systems with many interactions between the land, the sea, and the atmosphere. But the facts do suggest that the changes we're seeing in the Arctic could potentially affect currents that warm Western Europe, and that's gotten a lot of people concerned."

Ice is Key

There are several satellites keeping an all-weather watch on ice cover in the Arctic. NASA's Aqua satellite, for instance, carries a Japanese-built sensor called the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer-EOS ("AMSR-E" for short). Using microwaves, rather than visible light, AMSR-E can penetrate clouds and offer uninterrupted surveillance of the ice, even at night, explains Roy Spencer, the instrument's principal investigator at the Global Hydrology and Climate Center in Huntsville, Alabama. Other ice-watching satellites, operated by NASA, NOAA and the Dept. of Defense, use similar technology.
The view from orbit clearly shows a long-term decline in the "perennial" Arctic sea ice (the part that remains frozen during the warm summer months). According to a 2002 paper by Josefino Comiso, a climate scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, this year-round ice has been retreating since the beginning of the satellite record in 1978 at an average rate of 9% per decade. Studies looking at more recent data peg the rate at 14% per decade, suggesting that the decline of Arctic sea ice is accelerating.

Some scientists worry that melting Arctic sea ice will dump enough freshwater into the North Atlantic to interfere with sea currents. Some freshwater would come from the ice-melt itself, but the main contributor would be increased rain and snow in the region. Retreating ice cover exposes more of the ocean surface, allowing more moisture to evaporate into the atmosphere and leading to more precipitation.

Because saltwater is denser and heavier than freshwater, this "freshening" of the North Atlantic would make the surface layers more buoyant. That's a problem because the surface water needs to sink to drive a primary ocean circulation pattern known as the "Great Ocean Conveyor." Sunken water flows south along the ocean floor toward the equator, while warm surface waters from tropical latitudes flow north to replace the water that sank, thus keeping the Conveyor slowly chugging along. An increase in freshwater could prevent this sinking of North Atlantic surface waters, slowing or stopping this circulation.

(continued at link provided)

 

Hmmmm a tentative conclusion from six years ago - about the effect on one continent, not the globe, and an effect that is actually being driven by global warming

 

The SAME effect that has happened since the begining of time, I might add...

A couple of decades, is that quick enough for you?

By the way...

The mini Ice Age did in fact affect the entire Globe, it just affected some parts much more than others.

You understand that Global Warming and Man-Made Global Warming are two different things, right?

One knows that there are Natural cycles at work and the other tries to blame Man for those Natural cycles...

 

No what we are asking is for an alternate explanation other than "it is a cycle" which is NOT an explanation

You are mixing up "mini-ice age which was caused by the maunder minimum (or so i am guessing since your terminology is not exactly accurate) with a shut down of the gulf stream

Here is a more in-depth and more recent discussion surrounding the entire event

http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/GW_4CE_NATCGulfStream.htm

and
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2010-101&rn=news.xml&rst=2534

 

Sure it is...

If you look at the History of all of these things you see they are "cyclical" and you can see where we are in the "current cycle". Even an untrained eye can look at Historical Temperatures Globally and see what I am talking about. I believe even a layperson can see that we are nearing the top of the current upward trend, and that soon a downward trend will present itself, and quickly, then we better hope we are able to manipulate the temperatures with CO2 or we may be in for some rough times trying to learn how we may adapt to the coming changes.

 

And in each and every case we have a "driver" you even mentioned some of them - solar output orbital change etc

Point is NONE of those things that have triggered climate change in the past is affecting the climate at the moment - with the sole exception of one thing

rising CO2

 

the links I posted in response to your previous post were informative.

if you choose to dismiss them, you have to ask yourself, why is that?

 

Yes. I would say all Scientists who know will admit that CO2 levels FOLLOW Temperature change.

Just as all Scientists who know will admit that Temperature change can likewise FOLLOW CO2 levels.

We can't avert the next Ice Age. No one is suggesting we can.

he English language is a beautiful thing. Don't abuse it with gibberish.

CO2 is a significant Greenhouse Gas. It is the reason our planet is habitable. That is significant to me.

Scientific publications suggest you are talking bollocks:
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/sm7503.pdf


Is this why you have no evidence to support your claim?

Water vapour is not increasing significantly due to anthropgenic emissions.

Do you have anything of value to add? Or will you just continue to repeat crap? Let me know - so I can put you on "ignore".

Thanks

 

If you believe that scientists "know" why our planet is habitable and why Venus or Mars isn't then you are just fooling yourself.

 

can you explain yourself?

There are some pretty clear explanations as to why both are not habitable.

 

Those that understand their limitations stand a better chance of discovering the truth. Those that believe the science is settled limit their own growth.

Face it. Some people believe there is nothing more to learn. That is what my grandfather believed and he died before our new communication age.
Posted via Mobile Device

 

sorry ... the closed minded ones are those who deny the science ... not those who appreciate that the science is settled.

saying that the science is settled doesn't mean claiming that all things are known - but we DO KNOW the isotopic signature of anthropogenically produced carbon emissions, and we do know that increased carbon emissions contribute to warming.

anyone who has studied this field is well aware that there are other factors which contribute to climate change, but they are also aware that the science on the significance of human activity on climate change.

denialists refuse to accept the science - but are happy to accept any amount of bullshyt from non scientists to support their belief that human activity does not contribute to warming.

that is being ignorant as well as closed minded.

 

excerpt>>>

<<<<<<excerpt

You use too many all exclusive absolutes Cass. I am willing to say that man may contribute to global warming. However, to be honest I highly doubt it. I have been steadfast in that belief since I have been an adult. I too were swayed in my youth by popular save the whales type of thing (the whales are still far more important to me than AGW). Anyway the tide is finally turning away from those that feel AGW is real. There are too many self correcting mechanisms and evidence, including historical evidence to rebut the claims of AGW fanatics. Solar activity and other natural events punytify' mans generation of greenhouse gasses and even if we could produce vast amounts of CO2 we could not come close to producing the atmosphere of millions of years ago to the near present, specifically one instance where the CO2 levels were 14 times higher than they are today, and occurred during a ice age!

Its facts like those and reams more of evidence that convinces me that its not worth bankrupting our government and beholding our USA citizens to one worlders like the UN who has been frothing at the mouth to get its hands on our countries citizens.

Reva

 

This is where you are wrong and closed minded. I have never denied global warming or that we contribute. I question "the science is settled" stance that many warmers claim and question the doomsday scenarios they pop up with. After all, more warming will be better for mankind. More arable land and food for a growing population. Better conditions for living in northern parts of the world. Cooling would not allow that.

I also question dismissing the cycles that put us in this mild warming period during this 2.5 million year ice age.

 

I am sorry.

I had been trying to ask warmists if all things are known to science.

Now I see that you are saying that there are things which are not known to science. What are those things and how many of them which are not known to science?

As to the 2nd part. I did not see you are claiming that there are disagreements. potentially are very severe for many communities and ecosystems was the only finding submitted by you.

The observed fact is that nothing has happened since the finding which did not happened before the finding climate wise including the same scare of scabies and drunks drowned swimming in rivers, may I ask you what do we need scientists for? It looks like a complete waste of money.

And after all these years of observations if to imagine something is happening what should be money spend on wisely?

And I am still itching to hear an answer for Hoosir8 question - What is the source of cooling? Do scientists really think it is household refrigereators?

 

if you choose to be ignorant of science, there is nothing anyone can do to educate you about this.

 

the science IS settled that human activity is contributing to the current warming.

this does not mean that other factors do not also contribute to climate change on this planet. nor does it suggest that we know all there is to know about climate change.

those who choose to believe denialist bullshyt (which has been debunked by scientists who actually study this stuff) are the ones who are closed minded.

I deal with real scientists every day - they ALL recognise that AGW is real. I am not going to believe some unqualified anonymous poster on a forum has the answer that the hundreds of scientists who discuss this kind of issue have missed.

if that makes me closed minded, I guess Christopher Columbus was closed minded when he didn't believe the Santa Maria would fall off the edge of the earth.

 

I have no idea what you are talking about.

I suspect that you are not the full quid.

 

Let's go a step by step

"Originally Posted by _Inquisitor_
I am sorry.

I had been trying to ask warmists if all things are known to science.

Now I see that you are saying that there are things which are not known to science. "

What in the statements above does cause you to suspect I am not the full quid or I am not whatever else I may be?

What other relataion to the truth of my statements does your suspicion who I am can possibly have, if and only if you are not taking the usual route of little personal attacks all warmists [no exclusion] have to take?

 

I have noticed a few posters when asked a question they cannot answer start calling names or questioning your intelligence. Cheap shot but they think it actually works.

 

Rev

Allowing climate change to run the gamut is going to bankrupt you faster than dealing with it

That was the outcome of the Stern review

 

You are making a very poor assumption that one year is proof of a trend and that being able to grow corn farther north would be a problem.

 

Where have I made that assumption?

 

the rest of your post:

statements like the above.

the above clearly indicates that you have no idea what science is about - which with an education (presumably) and access to the internet (definitely) suggests a compulsion to retaining a world view which is out of whack with reality

interpreting what is clearly tongue in cheek as an observation of fact is indicative of at least one of several possible conditions.

or a deliberate attempt to feign stupidity.

 

Hoosier8 quoted you