Geo-engineering and Arctic mentioned here.
Andrew Revkin
Pondering the Path To an Open Polar Sea
By ANDREW C. REVKINIn the mid 1800s, some scientists and explorers — having not yet found a way through the forbidding sea ice sheathing much of the Arctic Ocean — posited that there was an “open polar sea” beyond those barricades, nourished by warm waters sweeping north past Scandinavian coasts. (I have the marvelous 1867 book “The Open Polar Sea” on my book shelf; you can read it online here.)
Now, it has become almost routine in summers to have broad stretches of the Arctic Ocean largely free of ice. Global warming from the human-driven buildup of heat-trapping greenhouse gases is seen by virtually all Arctic scientists as playing a growing role in driving the shift in summers toward a largely open sea at the top of the world, with plenty of variations along the way.
As the National Snow and Ice Data Center announced yesterday, Sept. 16 marked the end of the 2012 ice retreat, which far surpassed the ice melt in 2007 — at the time considered a jaw-dropping outlier by many researchers. Here’s one snippet from the center’s helpful release:
The six lowest seasonal minimum ice extents in the satellite record have all occurred in the last six years (2007 to 2012). In contrast to 2007, when climatic conditions (winds, clouds, air temperatures) favored summer ice loss, this year’s conditions were not as extreme. Summer temperatures across the Arctic were warmer than average, but cooler than in 2007. The most notable event was a very strong storm centered over the central Arctic Ocean in early August. [The NASA video above shows how the storm winds centered on the ice pack. Here's my post on that storm.] It is likely that the primary reason for the large loss of ice this summer is that the ice cover has continued to thin and become more dominated by seasonal ice. This thinner ice was more prone to be broken up and melted by weather events, such as the strong low pressure system just mentioned. The storm sped up the loss of the thin ice that appears to have been already on the verge of melting completely.
Justin Gillis has a news story describing the findings and some interpretations. There’s much more coverage, of course, and plenty of messaging from green groups.
The first question is why was this year so surprisingly extreme, even along a trend toward more open water? (Other questions will be addressed in the next few days.) Overall, as I’ve said for years, it’s the trend that matters most. Otherwise you can end up in endless seesaw debates about what’s going on — with this recent Skeptical Science graph demonstrating the importance of a longer view:
In the next 24 hours, I’ll be posting fresh excerpts from an extended and fascinating discussion of ice patterns since 2007 involving some of the world’s top ice researchers — both modelers and field scientists like those I accompanied in 2003 on their annual North Pole expedition undertaken to monitor the vital signs of the ocean beneath the drifting sea ice.
The pace of ice loss — both its extent and the amount of the older, thicker ice that survives from summer to summer — has been faster than most models predicted and clearly has, as a result, unnerved some polar researchers by revealing how much is unknown about ice behavior in a warming climate.
Even with this year’s extreme loss, there’s still a wide range of predictions among polar scientists of how soon the northernmost ocean will be “ice free” in late summer. Peter Wadhams, a British oceanographer who’s charted ice conditions for many years, is an outlier in predicting 2015 or so (he has joined an assortment of people calling for emergency geo-engineering effortsto chill the Arctic).
But most of the dozen or so ice scientists I’ve consulted of late (and several dozen since 2000) remain closer in their views to Cecilia Bitz of the University of Washington, who recently agreed with my notion (as a longtime, but lay, observer) that there’s “a 50-50 chance it will take a few decades.” (Keep in mind that almost all Arctic sea ice researchers add a big caveat when talking of an “ice-free Arctic Ocean,” noting that a big region of thick floes north and west of Greenland will almost surely persist in summers through this century, which is one reason some scientists have proposed targeting polar bear conservation efforts there.)
It’s clear to a range of scientists that the enormous loss of old, thick ice carried on currents from the Arctic out past Greenland into the Atlantic Ocean in recent years is a major factor that has led to sharp summer melting. (With the ocean cloaked mainly in relatively thin floes, formed over a single winter, the chances rise each summer of a big melt-off under the 24-hour sun and influxes of warmer seawater.) The forces driving that ice exodus are complicated, as you’ll hear from the scientists contributing below.
This animated, three-dimensional graph, created by an amateur Arctic watcher, Andy Lee Robinson, using data from the Piomas model of scientists at the University of Washington, gives an incredibly interesting view of how the reduction in overall ice volume has proceeded:
I asked Robinson, who is an engineer, graphics and programming expert and musician, to explain the steps and sources behind the graph. Click here for my Slideshare posting of his detailed reply.
While you wait for the exchange with ice researchers, I encourage you to explore the developing string of posts by Judith Curry of Georgia Tech, who led one of several research groups recently reporting links between summer ice loss and severe winter weather in temperate regions of the Northern Hemisphere (her relevant paper is here). Her first post explored this question:“How should we interpret the record low minimum sea ice extent?” Her second asked: “Whence an ‘ice free’ Arctic? Does an ‘ice free’ Arctic matter?”
Also, you can start by exploring an illustrated view of the array of factors – from sea-bottom topography to warm water – that may be in play in the changing Arctic Ocean provided by James Morison of the University of Washington. Morison has been studying Arctic sea ice and waters for decades and runs an annual expedition to the North Pole to drop instruments through the ice into the ocean below (the one I got to go on in 2003). He stresses this is informed speculation at this point, putting him in good company considering the many ideas in circulation and the persistent uncertainties in the system.
4:37 p.m. | Postscript | The scope of what’s unfolding, and the fascinating and persistent science and policy questions, make me think I need to update and expand my prize-winning book on the once and future Arctic, “The North Pole Was Here.” Thoughts welcome. The first chapter is online here.
http://www.nytimes.com/dotearth
Senior Fellow, Pace Acad. for Applied Env. Studies
Cell: 914-441-5556 Fax: 914-989-8009
Twitter: @revkin Skype: Andrew.Revkin
eugg...@comcast.net
From: "Andrew Revkin" <rev...@gmail.com>
To: "Geoengineering" <Geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: "Ken Caldeira" <kcal...@carnegiescience.edu>
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 4:44:18 PM
Subject: [geo] Geo-engineering and Arctic mentioned here.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
RAU greg
From: "eugg...@comcast.net" <eugg...@comcast.net>
To: rev...@gmail.com
Cc: Ken Caldeira <kcal...@carnegiescience.edu>; Geoengineering <Geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Fri, September 21, 2012 2:09:31 PM
Subject: Re: [geo] Geo-engineering and Arctic mentioned here.
Andrew Lockley
Without wishing to get sidetracked by a debate on the fundamental science of AGW, I'd like to add my tuppence on the arctic sea ice discussion.
To me, this is a fulfilment of warnings I've been giving out for years on the flawed approach of science to the AGW issue. The 'mainstream ' science on the Arctic has been woefully, shamefully wrong - bordering on denial. Scientists have been shy of the sea ice data, and instead referred back to wholly inadequate models. This is the *exact opposite* of the scientific method. I suspect the same folly is repeated throughout climate science.
Scientists studying AGW have been too timid to compound mechanisms to give realistic conclusions. They have been reluctant to shout about our reliance on models which are too piecemeal to model the earth system properly. They have shied away from controversy by playing down their warnings and by using conservative assumptions, where prudence dictates the opposite. This is repeated in other sub fields, notably emissions predictions.
A social parallel would be if a shepherd failed to cry "wolf", until DNA tests confirmed it was actually a wolf savaging the sheep, and not a similar-looking animal - "But what if it's a large dog? We need more research!" Meanwhile, the flock on which the citizens depend is lost.
Collectively, climate scientists face grave embarrassment, even disgrace, if they continue on this path.
As a young student engineer, I was taught to build factors of safety into my work. Designing things an order of magnitude stronger than needed is routine in society, and we do not question the cost . Bridges designed for walking can support cars without breaking. Buildings can survive impacts and blasts far beyond their design thresholds without collapse. Airliners can tumble miles in freefall without breaking up. Climate scientists have a lot to learn from this approach. They are at present risking the very survival of our society by a collectively reckless approach to risk, which is not repeated in comparable disciplines.
Step up, or history will shame us.
A
eugg...@comcast.net
Bhaskar:
You are totally correct; I could not agree more. However, potential solutions depend on the cause. The global increase has been about 5 degrees C for the last 10,000 years or about 0.0005 per year and 0.05 degrees for the past 100 years. That gradual rise is not the current or nearterm cause or issue. There are warming and cooling cycles, several per 1000 years and we may be in a warming cycle that accounts for the current warming. We are also in a Malenkovich cycle. There are a variety of possibilities to explain the warming and CO2 may be only a minor player. The point is that it is warming and the strategy for controlling the warming needs to be worked out and proven so it can be implemented as necessary. To conclude it is CO2 and ALL we need to do is reduce CO2 concentration is not warranted; it is sheer stupidity in the extreme. We need a thermostat that works and only geoengineering can provide that. I am appalled that the CO2 freaks have been able to block the emergence of a serious geoengineering effort.
-gene
From: "M V Bhaskar" <bhaska...@gmail.com>
To: geoengi...@googlegroups.com
Cc: eugg...@comcast.net, rev...@gmail.com, "Ken Caldeira" <kcal...@carnegiescience.edu>, "Geoengineering" <Geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 8:05:50 AM
Subject: Re: [geo] Geo-engineering and Arctic mentioned here.
Eugene
Mike MacCracken
At the same time, engineers come at issues a bit differently, as you suggest. In the area of adaptation, however, a number of engineers have unfortunately tended to base their designs on past climatic conditions, and it has generally taken some time to get them to include climate change in the conditions that are used in their designs (so, at least in the US, sewage plants have been built at sea level, and a lot of housing right on the coast, etc.). There is a lot for all to improve in how they are reacting to and dealing with climate change.
What we need is more experts who are bridging the two disciplines, focused on applied science/engineering physics, etc. This was just what I was lucky enough to be able to have as a background—undergrad in engineering, master’s with a lot of physics, and PhD combining both.
Best, Mike
September 20, 2012, 3:57 PM Comment <http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/20/arctic-ice-melt-and-the-path-toward-an-open-polar-sea/#postComment>
Pondering the Path To an Open Polar Sea
By ANDREW C. REVKIN <http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/author/andrew-c-revkin/>
In the mid 1800s, some scientists and explorers — having not yet found a way through the forbidding sea ice sheathing much of the Arctic Ocean — posited that there was an “open polar sea <http://books.google.com/books?id=Xveu35zy7AkC&pg=PA82&lpg=PA82&dq=matthew+fontaine+maury+%22open+polar+sea%22&source=bl&ots=bH05jVi1rB&sig=Y5JNRJFBNW7aQL9qe64DDiE9P1A&hl=en&sa=X&ei=sEJbULjdOrS20AGu4YCICA&ved=0CE4Q6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=matthew%20fontaine%20maury%20%22open%20polar%20sea%22&f=false> ” beyond those barricades, nourished by warm waters sweeping north past Scandinavian coasts. (I have the marvelous 1867 book “The Open Polar Sea” on my book shelf; you can read it online here <http://books.google.com/books?id=ltY35Ap35moC&dq=the%20open%20polar%20sea%20isaac%20hayes&source=gbs_book_other_versions> .)
Now, it has become almost routine in summers to have broad stretches of the Arctic Ocean <http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/16/arctic-shipping-gets-boring/> largely free of ice. Global warming <http://j.mp/dotBasics> from the human-driven buildup of heat-trapping greenhouse gases is seen by virtually all Arctic scientists as playing a growing role in driving the shift in summers toward a largely open sea at the top of the world, with plenty of variations along the way.
As the National Snow and Ice Data Center announced yesterday <http://nsidc.org/news/press/2012_seaiceminimum.html> , Sept. 16 marked the end of the 2012 ice retreat, which far surpassed the ice melt in 2007 — at the time considered a jaw-dropping outlier by many researchers <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/science/earth/02arct.html> . Here’s one snippet from the center’s helpful release <http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2012/09/arctic-sea-ice-extent-settles-at-record-seasonal-minimum/> :
The six lowest seasonal minimum ice extents in the satellite record have all occurred in the last six years (2007 to 2012). In contrast to 2007, when climatic conditions (winds, clouds, air temperatures) favored summer ice loss, this year’s conditions were not as extreme. Summer temperatures across the Arctic were warmer than average, but cooler than in 2007. The most notable event was a very strong storm centered over the central Arctic Ocean in early August. [The NASA video above shows how the storm winds centered on the ice pack. Here's my post on that storm <http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/08/a-closer-look-at-ice-impacts-of-a-rare-arctic-summer-storm/> .] It is likely that the primary reason for the large loss of ice this summer is that the ice cover has continued to thin and become more dominated by seasonal ice. This thinner ice was more prone to be broken up and melted by weather events, such as the strong low pressure system just mentioned. The storm sped up the loss of the thin ice that appears to have been already on the verge of melting completely.Justin Gillis has a news story describing the findings and some interpretations <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/20/science/earth/arctic-sea-ice-stops-melting-but-new-record-low-is-set.html?adxnnl=1&hpw=&adxnnlx=1348156811-AMhYRTX2MitvA5wM/+bm8g> . There’s much more coverage <https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&q=arctic+sea+ice+extent+record+2012&oq=arctic+sea+ice+extent+record+2012&gs_l=news-cc.3..43j43i400.2065.10511.0.10744.37.7.4.26.30.0.59.359.7.7.0...0.0...1ac.1.-OEj3k9vL9o> , of course, and plenty of messaging from green groups <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/19/arctic-sea-ice-loss-record-low_n_1897602.html> .
The first question is why was this year so surprisingly extreme, even along a trend toward more open water? (Other questions will be addressed in the next few days.) Overall, as I’ve said for years, it’s the trend that matters most. Otherwise you can end up in endless seesaw debates about what’s going on — with this recent Skeptical Science graph demonstrating the importance of a longer view:
Skeptical Science <http://www.skepticalscience.com/vanishing-arctic-sea-ice-going-up-the-down-escalator.html> A graph of September Arctic sea ice extent (blue diamonds) with “recovery” years highlighted in red, versus the long-term sea ice decline fit with a second order polynomial, also in red.
In the next 24 hours, I’ll be posting fresh excerpts from an extended and fascinating discussion of ice patterns since 2007 involving some of the world’s top ice researchers — both modelers and field scientists like those I accompanied in 2003 <http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/13/science/earth/13EXTR.html> on their annual North Pole expedition undertaken to monitor the vital signs of the ocean beneath the drifting sea ice.
The pace of ice loss — both its extent and the amount of the older, thicker ice that survives from summer to summer — has been faster than most models predicted and clearly has, as a result, unnerved some polar researchers by revealing how much is unknown about ice behavior in a warming climate.
Even with this year’s extreme loss, there’s still a wide range of predictions among polar scientists of how soon the northernmost ocean will be “ice free” in late summer. Peter Wadhams, a British oceanographer who’s charted ice conditions for many years <http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=wadhams+submarine+ice+arctic&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C33&as_sdtp=> , is an outlier in predicting 2015 or so <http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/sep/17/arctic-collapse-sea-ice> (he has joined an assortment of people calling for emergency geo-engineering efforts <http://ameg.me/index.php/24-the-case-for-emergency-geo-engineering-to-save-the-arctic-from-collapse> to chill the Arctic).
But most of the dozen or so ice scientists I’ve consulted of late (and several dozen since 2000) remain closer in their views to Cecilia Bitz <http://vimeo.com/15622850> of the University of Washington, who recently agreed with my notion (as a longtime, but lay, observer) that there’s “a 50-50 chance it will take a few decades <http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/11/a-bad-bet-on-arctic-sea-ice/> .” (Keep in mind that almost all Arctic sea ice researchers add a big caveat when talking of an “ice-free Arctic Ocean,” noting that a big region of thick floes north and west of Greenland will almost surely persist in summers through this century, which is one reason some scientists <http://e360.yale.edu/feature/as_the_arctic_ocean_melts_a_refuge_plan_for_the_polar_bear/2355/> have proposed targeting polar bear conservation efforts <http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/17/pondering-a-polar-predator-in-retreat/> there.)
It’s clear to a range of scientists that the enormous loss of old, thick ice carried on currents from the Arctic out past Greenland into the Atlantic Ocean in recent years is a major factor that has led to sharp summer melting. (With the ocean cloaked mainly in relatively thin floes, formed over a single winter, the chances rise each summer of a big melt-off under the 24-hour sun and influxes of warmer seawater.) The forces driving that ice exodus are complicated, as you’ll hear from the scientists contributing below.
This animated, three-dimensional graph, created by an amateur Arctic watcher, Andy Lee Robinson, using data from the Piomas model of scientists at the University of Washington, gives an incredibly interesting view of how the reduction in overall ice volume has proceeded:
I asked Robinson, who is an engineer, graphics and programming expert and musician, to explain the steps and sources behind the graph. Click here for my Slideshare posting of his detailed reply <http://www.slideshare.net/Revkin/explainer-animated-3d-arctic-ice-volume-graph> .
While you wait for the exchange with ice researchers, I encourage you to explore the developing string of posts by Judith Curry of Georgia Tech, who led one of several research groups <http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/closer-look-at-arctic-sea-ice-melt-and-extreme-weather-15013> recently reporting links between summer ice loss and severe winter weather in temperate regions of the Northern Hemisphere (her relevant paper is here <http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/02/17/1114910109.full.pdf> ). Her first post explored this question:“How should we interpret the record low minimum sea ice extent?” <http://judithcurry.com/2012/09/16/reflections-on-the-arctic-sea-ice-minimum-part-i/> Her second asked: “Whence an ‘ice free’ Arctic? Does an ‘ice free’ Arctic matter?” <http://judithcurry.com/2012/09/17/reflections-on-the-arctic-sea-ice-minimum-part-ii/>
Also, you can start by exploring an illustrated view of the array of factors – from sea-bottom topography to warm water – that may be in play in the changing Arctic Ocean provided by James Morison <http://j.mp/dotmorison> of the University of Washington. Morison has been studying Arctic sea ice and waters for decades and runs an annual expedition to the North Pole to drop instruments through the ice into the ocean below (the one I got to go on in 2003 <http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/science/20030513_NORTH/> ). He stresses this is informed speculation at this point, putting him in good company considering the many ideas in circulation and the persistent uncertainties in the system.
An Arctic Expert’s View of the Great Ice Melt of 2012 <http://www.slideshare.net/Revkin/an-arctic-experts-view-of-the-great-ice-melt-of-2012> from Andrew Revkin <http://www.slideshare.net/Revkin>
4:37 p.m. | Postscript | The scope of what’s unfolding, and the fascinating and persistent science and policy questions, make me think I need to update and expand my prize-winning book on the once and future Arctic, “The North Pole Was Here.” <http://us.macmillan.com/newyorktimesthenorthpolewashere/AndrewRevkin> Thoughts welcome. The first chapter is online here. <http://www.nytimes.com/ref/learning/newssummaries/northpolech1.html>
David Lewis
Sea ice cover is probably not that unstable. Figure 3 shows Arctic and Antarctic sea ice cover in the summer months of maximum insolation, as well as the ice cover in the months with maximum and minimum ice area. It is the sea ice area in April-August, when the sun is high in the Arctic sky, that determines the degree of sea ice feedback in the Northern Hemisphere. The figure below suggests that the September 2007 sea ice minimum did not have a correspondingly large effect on the sea ice area at the time of maximum insolation.
Arctic and Antarctic sea ice extent at their minimums, maximums and seasons of maximum and minimum insolation. (Also in PDF.) The "extent" includes the area near the pole not imaged by the sensor. It is assumed to be entirely ice covered with at least 15% concentration. [This statement and data source is National Snow and Ice Data Center, Boulder, CO; http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/.]
It seems likely that all September Arctic sea ice may be gone within a few decades, if human- made greenhouse gases continue to increase. On the other hand, as discussed in "Storms", if Earth's energy balance is restored by decreasing atmospheric carbon dioxide to 350 ppm or less, it may be possible to stabilize or increase the area of Arctic ice.
See more figures.
Emily
I have plotted the 2012 sea ice extent onto the IPCC projections, as I
did in 2007 also.
best wishes,
EMily.
On 23/09/2012 04:59, M V Bhaskar wrote:
> Gene
>
> You said " ... There are a variety of possibilities to explain the
> warming ..."
> What are they?
>
> The increase, over the past 200 years, in burning of fossil fuel, CO2
> level of atmosphere and oceans and rise in temperature are very well
> documented and the correlation is very high.
>
> You seem to be arguing against yourself.
> As per your own statement natural warming is only 0.0005 per year
> i.e., 0.05 degrees over 100 years.
> The actual increase in the past 100 years is about 0.8 degrees C, this
> is much more than the 0.05 degrees you mentioned.
>
> regards
>
> Bhaskar
> On Saturday, 22 September 2012 19:59:57 UTC+5:30, Gene wrote:
>
> Bhaskar:
>
> You are totally correct; I could not agree more. However,
> potential solutions depend on the cause. The global increase has
> been about 5 degrees C for the last 10,000 years or about 0.0005
> per year and 0.05 degrees for the past 100 years. That gradual
> rise is not the current or nearterm cause or issue. There are
> warming and cooling cycles, several per 1000 years and we may be
> in a warming cycle that accounts for the current warming. We are
> also in a Malenkovich cycle. There are a variety of possibilities
> to explain the warming and CO2 may be only a minor player. The
> point is that it is warming and the strategy for controlling the
> warming needs to be worked out and proven so it can be implemented
> as necessary. To conclude it is CO2 and ALL we need to do is
> reduce CO2 concentration is not warranted; it is sheer stupidity
> in the extreme. We need a thermostat that works and only
> geoengineering can provide that. I am appalled that the CO2 freaks
> have been able to block the emergence of a serious geoengineering
> effort.
>
> -gene
>
>
> *From: *"M V Bhaskar" <bhaska...@gmail.com <javascript:>>
> *To: *geoengi...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>
> *Cc: *eugg...@comcast.net <javascript:>, rev...@gmail.com
> <javascript:>, "Ken Caldeira" <kcal...@carnegiescience.edu
> <javascript:>>, "Geoengineering" <Geoengi...@googlegroups.com
> <javascript:>>
> *Sent: *Saturday, September 22, 2012 8:05:50 AM
> *Subject: *Re: [geo] Geo-engineering and Arctic mentioned here.
> Eugene
>
>
> What difference does the cause of the problem make to solving the
> problem?
> If Global warming and ocean acidification are problems, we should
> find ways to solve or mitigate them.
>
> No one is trying to punish anyone for causing the problems.
> We are only trying to solve it.
>
> I am sure that you will agree that even if global warming is,
> mainly or partly, due to natural factors, anthropogenic activity
> is adding fuel to the fire. :)
>
> regards
>
> Bhaskar
>
> On Saturday, 22 September 2012 08:59:16 UTC+5:30, Greg Rau wrote:
>
> Eugene,
> What then is your opinion on anthropogenic CO2 induced ocean
> acidification?
> Thanks,
> Greg
>
> *From:* "eugg...@comcast.net" <eugg...@comcast.net>
> *To:* rev...@gmail.com
> *Cc:* Ken Caldeira <kcal...@carnegiescience.edu>;
> Geoengineering <Geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
> *Sent:* Fri, September 21, 2012 2:09:31 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [geo] Geo-engineering and Arctic mentioned here.
> Fascinating input. Scary. Good input but spoiled gratuitously.
> I take exception to the gratuitous comment in the second
> paragraph of 'human driven' cause ignoring the fact that it
> not scientifically proven that global warming is human driven
> and because it has been warming on average for 10,000 years
> without enough humans or CO2 around to make a difference; AND
> there are cycles of warming and cooling overlaying the general
> warming trend. One can have an opinion, FINE, but opinion does
> not substitute for proven science and the theory of CO2-driven
> global warming clearly remains to be proven using the accepted
> scientific process. Science is not an election and AGW remains
> to be proven. until it is proven it remains a not so robust
> hypothesis. Why is that so hard to understand? Is it debatable?
>
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "geoengineering" group.
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/3UIyIBsuBKoJ.
rongre...@comcast.net
1. This is first to follow up on Dr. Bhaskar's request to Dr. Gordon, hoping that he will answer his yesterday-question below asking you to explain the :"variety of possibilities to explain the warming ..." [I have highlighted it and 3 others below]
I believe that you are on a list where any non-CO2 response will be quite clinically rebutted. I urge you to check out those "possibilities" at www.skepticalscience.com before giving them here. I hope you can then join the "believer" (CO2-causation) group in as the only one that I find can't be readily rebutted (as done at the several sites given below)..
2. But mostly I am asking a new question - to give a citation for your earlier sentence below :
For my side of the story, I ask you to read:
a. http://www.skepticalscience.com/heading-into-new-little-ice-age.htm
(has considerable data showing declining temperatures due to Milankovitch cycles
b. A figure at comment #217 will be recognized as the "Hockey stick" at http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=5&t=258&&a=53
All declining temperatures until recently - and these not as rapidly declining as in ALL earlier cycles.
c. Excellent set of response comments by Bill Ruddiman to his also excellent original short "paper" at
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/04/an-emerging-view-on-early-land-use/
I saw only a few denier comments there.
d. My Geoengineering (CDR; biochar) reason for being interested in this topic is explicated by Erich Knight at comments #69, 90, 95 at
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/04/an-emerging-view-on-early-land-use/comment-page-2/#comments
Again, I ask for a citation for your view of this same time period.
3. If you find you have erred on the above two points, I'd be interested in knowing if you still stand by your two terms following the two repeated above:
"...it is sheer stupidity in the extreme. " and " CO2 freaks "
4. I have also highlighted below a few of your Friday-remarks - and wonder if you care to take any of those back as well?
Ron
Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 9:59:11 PM
Subject: Re: [geo] Geo-engineering and Arctic mentioned here.
Gene
What are they?
On Saturday, 22 September 2012 19:59:57 UTC+5:30, Gene wrote:
Bhaskar:
You are totally correct; I could not agree more. However, potential solutions depend on the cause. The global increase has been about 5 degrees C for the last 10,000 years or about 0.0005 per year and 0.05 degrees for the past 100 years. [RWL: Emphasis added here and below.] That gradual rise is not the current or nearterm cause or issue. There are warming and cooling cycles, several per 1000 years and we may be in a warming cycle that accounts for the current warming. We are also in a Malenkovich cycle. There are a variety of possibilities to explain the warming and CO2 may be only a minor player. The point is that it is warming and the strategy for controlling the warming needs to be worked out and proven so it can be implemented as necessary. To conclude it is CO2 and ALL we need to do is reduce CO2 concentration is not warranted; it is sheer stupidity in the extreme. We need a thermostat that works and only geoengineering can provide that. I am appalled that the CO2 freaks have been able to block the emergence of a serious geoengineering effort.
-gene
From: "M V Bhaskar" <bhaska...@gmail.com>
To: geoengi...@googlegroups.com
Cc: eugg...@comcast.net, rev...@gmail.com, "Ken Caldeira" <kcal...@carnegiescience.edu>, "Geoengineering" <Geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 8:05:50 AM
Subject: Re: [geo] Geo-engineering and Arctic mentioned here.
Eugene
What difference does the cause of the problem make to solving the problem?If Global warming and ocean acidification are problems, we should find ways to solve or mitigate them.No one is trying to punish anyone for causing the problems.We are only trying to solve it.I am sure that you will agree that even if global warming is, mainly or partly, due to natural factors, anthropogenic activity is adding fuel to the fire. :)regards
Bhaskar
On Saturday, 22 September 2012 08:59:16 UTC+5:30, Greg Rau wrote:
Eugene,What then is your opinion on anthropogenic CO2 induced ocean acidification?Thanks,Greg
Cc: Ken Caldeira <kcal...@carnegiescience.edu>; Geoengineering <Geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Fri, September 21, 2012 2:09:31 PM
Subject: Re: [geo] Geo-engineering and Arctic mentioned here.
Fascinating input. Scary. Good input but spoiled gratuitously. I take exception to the gratuitous comment in the second paragraph of 'human driven' cause ignoring the fact that it not scientifically proven that global warming is human driven and because it has been warming on average for 10,000 years without enough humans or CO2 around to make a difference; AND there are cycles of warming and cooling overlaying the general warming trend. One can have an opinion, FINE, but opinion does not substitute for proven science and the theory of CO2-driven global warming clearly remains to be proven using the accepted scientific process. Science is not an election and AGW remains to be proven. until it is proven it remains a not so robust hypothesis. Why is that so hard to understand? Is it debatable?
eugg...@comcast.net
Ron:
In my humble opinion you got it wrong. I am the believer. I believe in the scientific method. I have used it and continue to use a 500 year tradition for how science must be practiced and I have been doing it continually for 55 years since my postdoc days. I do not ever expect to see scientific proof that global warming is caused mostly by the increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. I WILL BE LONG DEAD! It makes good sense that at least some of it is caused by the CO2 increase; but it has not been demonstrated. Good science does not always correlate with common sense. The scientific method is a tough master.
In contrast, you totally ignore the scientific method. You are a cynic along with all the other CO2 advocates who incredibly vote on the validity of a hypothesis and ignore the requirements of the scientific method. THAT AIN'T THE WAY IT IS DONE!
For the past 10,000 year record see: http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm
Milankovitch cycles do not apply to the entire earth simultaneously. In any case although there is an amazing amount of understanding of the cycle it is not thoroughly understood.
Right now the ice data says we are in a high temperature portion and have been for about 10,000 years. However Milankovitch has little to do with the geological history of the Earth's climate as you may find in the Scotese website above. If you study it you will find that motion of land masses correlates with the gross temperature variations.
Do you understand the term 'about'?
Do you understand that a few warming and cooling cycles occur within almost every 1000 year period as shown in the Vostok ice records, and that some recent mini cycles correlate with sunspot variations (not a claim just an observation).
-gene
Mike MacCracken
Fine to say it is not fully proven in the way that some simpler issues might be resolved, but the Earth system is both a physical system (in the widest sense of the meaning of physical) and so subject to fundamental conservation laws, etc., and it is very complex, so not subject to the type of full laboratory experiment that you might like. Thus, we are forced to approach things differently, namely, because the vitality of the Earth is so important to human well being, to identify the explanation that provides the best ability to explain what is happening and why in a really rigorous manner that has rule other explanations as beyond reasonable doubt, to use the legal phrase. Fine to keep suggesting challenges for the explanation, but to demand direct proof when all that will be possible is an overwhelming circumstantial case is choosing, it seems to many of us, to be inadequately giving credit to the reasoning power of the human mind and placing a very long odds bet in the face of a very serious challenge to the environment on which we all depend.
Mike
On 9/24/12 11:32 AM, "eSubsc...@montgomerycountymd.gov" <eugg...@comcast.net> wrote:
Ron:
In my humble opinion you got it wrong. I am the believer. I believe in the scientific method. I have used it and continue to use a 500 year tradition for how science must be practiced and I have been doing it continually for 55 years since my postdoc days. I do not ever expect to see scientific proof that global warming is caused mostly by the increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. I WILL BE LONG DEAD! It makes good sense that at least some of it is caused by the CO2 increase; but it has not been demonstrated. Good science does not always correlate with common sense. The scientific method is a tough master.
In contrast, you totally ignore the scientific method. You are a cynic along with all the other CO2 advocates who incredibly vote
on the validity of a hypothesis and ignore the requirements of the scientific method. THAT AIN'T THE WAY IT IS DONE!
For the past 10,000 year record see: http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm <http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm>
From: "M V Bhaskar" <bhaska...@gmail.com <about:blank> >
To: geoengi...@googlegroups.com <about:blank>
Cc: eugg...@comcast.net <about:blank> , rev...@gmail.com <about:blank> , "Ken Caldeira" <kcal...@carnegiescience.edu <about:blank> >, "Geoengineering" <Geoengi...@googlegroups.com <about:blank> >
Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 8:05:50 AM
Subject: Re: [geo] Geo-engineering and Arctic mentioned here.
Eugene
What difference does the cause of the problem make to solving the problem?
If Global warming and ocean acidification are problems, we should find ways to solve or mitigate them.
No one is trying to punish anyone for causing the problems.
We are only trying to solve it.
I am sure that you will agree that even if global warming is, mainly or partly, due to natural factors, anthropogenic activity is adding fuel to the fire. :)
regards
Bhaskar
On Saturday, 22 September 2012 08:59:16 UTC+5:30, Greg Rau wrote:
eugg...@comcast.net
Mike:
I am not rejecting anything. I include in my list of possibilities the idea that most of the current warming is caused by CO2 increase. However, I reject the idea that the case is sufficiently convincing to act on it. Moreover, some competent scientists, who know far far more than I do about the current status, reject the idea. Countries like Canada, for example, reject it. Are they motivated by the benefits of warming? Perhaps. But who is to say you are not motivated by the benefits of acting to reduce CO2 emission or concentration? Humans being what they are, and we know what they are, cannot be completely trusted. That is why we rely on the scientific method. Too bad it is inconvenient or not sufficiently timely for this case!
Moreover, some countries are not unhappy about the warming so there will never be a consensus for acting on it by means of reducing CO2 concentration. That is why I am such a strong believer in geoengineering
that has relatively local or short term applicability. Among this group there are experts. I am certainly not an expert and indeed far from it nor do I want to be. My technical interest is in infection control. The study of geoengineering should receive far more support; possibly receiving funds currently going to climate scientists who by your own words do not have firm control of the science after many many years of study.
I point out again as I have many times in the past that for the last 50 years the study of cancer received over $400 billion dollars in the US and is currently receiving $20 billion annually and still there is no understanding of what causes cancer. On the other hand there are some fixes. Fortunately the death rate is not increasing because there are cures, not well understood or scientific, but they do work sometimes. Geoengineering is a similar cure. It does not end the problem. It should get a big portion of the money presently going to climate science, which you admit is not providing the necessary understanding or confirmation and won't for the foreseeable future. The funding should be used instead for defining, inventing, and testing geoengineering solutions.
-gene
Emily
Huge apologies, I omitted a key word from the sea ice graph legend
(million) and have now created an amended version!
In addition, in response to a suggestion, I have added a red dotted line
between the previous data set and the 2012 minimum sea ice extent, for
clarity.
Hope this is ok.
Comments very welcome.
best wishes,
Emily.
Emily
graph, consequently, the start was too low.
please have a look at this one and see if it seems a good fit.
In October, when the September mean data are available, I can re plot
the graph.
Comments welcome.
thanks so much for your patience,
Emily.
Fulkerson, William
I applaud your reasoned comments on Professor Gordon's email about the scientific method and anthropogenic climate change.
One may not be able to arrive at a classical Galilean scientific theory supported by unequivocal experimental proof as you point out.
However, we can work to understand risk of anthropogenic climate change as a means for choosing reasonable policies and other actions.
The best,
Bill
Bill Fulkerson, Senior Fellow and LERDWG Chair
Institute for a Secure and Sustainable Environment
University of Tennessee
311 Conference Center Bldg.
Knoxville, TN 37996-4138
wf...@utk.edu
865-974-9221, -1838 FAX
Home
865-988-8084; 865-680-0937 CELL
2781 Wheat Road, Lenoir City, TN 37771- 8306
Fulkerson, William
I applaud your response to Professor Gordon.
Bill Fulkerson
Bill Fulkerson, Senior Fellow
Institute for a Secure and Sustainable Environment
University of Tennessee
311 Conference Center Bldg.
Knoxville, TN 37996-4138
wf...@utk.edu
865-974-9221, -1838 FAX
Home
865-988-8084; 865-680-0937 CELL
2781 Wheat Road, Lenoir City, TN 37771
On 9/24/12 12:07 PM, "Mike MacCracken" <mmac...@comcast.net> wrote: