Robot Sub Finds Surprisingly Thick Antarctic Sea Ice

[TheLurch]

But, quite obviously, the drivers of this issue thought it important enough to change the nomenclature!

Actually, they've both been used pretty extensively from the start.

(We'll see if this successfully embeds...)

Why do they diverge in the late 1980s? My guess is that was shortly after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (or IPCC) was launched, which gets a lot of "climate change" mentions into the news.

[Cow Poke]

The broader issue is both natural and human influence on climate change, and global warming from human influence. The issue is complicated yes, but picking on terminology does not face up to the problems.

But, quite obviously, the drivers of this issue thought it important enough to change the nomenclature!

[shunyadragon]

Oooooops... don't you mean "climate change"? Get with the program!

The broader issue is both natural and human influence on climate change, and global warming from human influence. The issue is complicated yes, but picking on terminology does not face up to the problems.

[shunyadragon]

No problem; I do appreciate your approach.

I think we’ve resolved what was my initial point of surprise with mutual recognition that Earth’s climate is (absent human influences) in a plateau between glacial periods – the Holocene.

The Holocene is a nice comfortable plateau in between large temperature increases and decreases associated with the glacials (or ice ages). The graph certainly supports this.

Any trends within the Holocene are more subtle and should (and do) use more information than can be obtained from a single ice core. Even so, the Vostok core gives weak support to the conventional picture of a Holocene “Optimum” within the plateau, about 5000 years ago, and very slight trend of decline since then. There are, of course, substantial natural variations above and below the norm, like the MWP and LIA. Here’s a plot of the last 10000 years from the Vostok core data (cited previously) with a simple quadratic trend line fitted. This is not intended to be a strong argument of itself; for that I defer to more serious and detailed studies. Note this plot omits the preceding huge temperature shift in moving from the Ice Age glacial into the Holocene. [Added in edit... Horizontal scale is years before present, with "present" defined by convention to be 1950. The ice core cannot give data right up to the present; Vostok core data goes up to the year 1800 (or 150 years B.P.). In particular, the Vostok core cannot show any of the twentieth century warming. Vertical scale is in degrees. Petit et al uses a larger temperature shift per deuterium count than many researchers, so vertical scale may be as much as 50% too big in scale. This doesn't effect the shape of the curve, though.]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]2978[/ATTACH]


I didn’t actually give an argument in this thread; that’s not really my area to argue in any detail. I rather referred to the conventional picture of the Holocene, without argument. Even the ice core plot above I’d hesitate to call an “argument”. The significance of the simple quadratic fit is really low; for the actual scientific case for the Holocene Optimum one can easily do a literature search. But it’s a fairly minor point, I think. My real point is that the trend of warming out of the last ice age is not something that is ongoing into the present.

The argument for or against a Holocene Optimum is no more direct or indirect than any inferences about temperature in the past. It’s all based on proxies. The difference is not that the evidence is indirect, but that the feature being identified does not stand out as dramatically as the ice ages.

All of this is pretty minor, and I consider my initial query to be resolved.

Thanks -- sylas

God response!!!

[Cow Poke]

Yeah, yeah, I like the old traditions. But do you like the idea that religion is treasonous? It might catch on like this strange sentence I heard on DogmaDebate just now - “The “War on Christmas” is a manufacturversy created by the republifundagelicals.”

Start a thread on that if you wish.

[Littlejoe]

Yeah, yeah, I like the old traditions. But do you like the idea that religion is treasonous? It might catch on like this strange sentence I heard on DogmaDebate just now - “The “War on Christmas” is a manufacturversy created by the republifundagelicals.”

FF, you need to take this kind of stuff to Apologetics. It has nothing to do with the topic.

[firstfloor]

Oooooops... don't you mean "climate change"? Get with the program!

Yeah, yeah, I like the old traditions. But do you like the idea that religion is treasonous? It might catch on like this strange sentence I heard on DogmaDebate just now - “The “War on Christmas” is a manufacturversy created by the republifundagelicals.”

[Cow Poke]

Global warming

Oooooops... don't you mean "climate change"? Get with the program!

[sylas]

Let's clarify some things. I apologize for any miscommunication.

No problem; I do appreciate your approach.

I think we’ve resolved what was my initial point of surprise with mutual recognition that Earth’s climate is (absent human influences) in a plateau between glacial periods – the Holocene.

The Holocene is a nice comfortable plateau in between large temperature increases and decreases associated with the glacials (or ice ages). The graph certainly supports this.

Any trends within the Holocene are more subtle and should (and do) use more information than can be obtained from a single ice core. Even so, the Vostok core gives weak support to the conventional picture of a Holocene “Optimum” within the plateau, about 5000 years ago, and very slight trend of decline since then. There are, of course, substantial natural variations above and below the norm, like the MWP and LIA. Here’s a plot of the last 10000 years from the Vostok core data (cited previously) with a simple quadratic trend line fitted. This is not intended to be a strong argument of itself; for that I defer to more serious and detailed studies. Note this plot omits the preceding huge temperature shift in moving from the Ice Age glacial into the Holocene. [Added in edit... Horizontal scale is years before present, with "present" defined by convention to be 1950. The ice core cannot give data right up to the present; Vostok core data goes up to the year 1800 (or 150 years B.P.). In particular, the Vostok core cannot show any of the twentieth century warming. Vertical scale is in degrees. Petit et al uses a larger temperature shift per deuterium count than many researchers, so vertical scale may be as much as 50% too big in scale. This doesn't effect the shape of the curve, though.]
VostokCoreHoloceneTemperature.jpg

(3) Your argument that the Holocene Optimum is the apex of the cycle leading to the cooling trend is indirect, and may or may not be true. I believe the long term graphs show similar ups and downs in the temperature range over the long term plateau shown on the two graphs without the distinct beginning of a cooling trend.

I didn’t actually give an argument in this thread; that’s not really my area to argue in any detail. I rather referred to the conventional picture of the Holocene, without argument. Even the ice core plot above I’d hesitate to call an “argument”. The significance of the simple quadratic fit is really low; for the actual scientific case for the Holocene Optimum one can easily do a literature search. But it’s a fairly minor point, I think. My real point is that the trend of warming out of the last ice age is not something that is ongoing into the present.

The argument for or against a Holocene Optimum is no more direct or indirect than any inferences about temperature in the past. It’s all based on proxies. The difference is not that the evidence is indirect, but that the feature being identified does not stand out as dramatically as the ice ages.

All of this is pretty minor, and I consider my initial query to be resolved.

Thanks -- sylas

[firstfloor]

That happened after the invention of fire*, electricity and air conditioning, too.
*yes, I'm being facetious about the "invention" of fire.

Global warming could make most of the planet uninhabitable by humans. Self inflicted extinction is a real possibility. The Bible might bring temporary comfort to a few but even these people know in their hearts that their hope is misplaced – “and the stars in the sky fell to earth, as figs drop from a fig tree when shaken by a strong wind.”

That is to say that it is obvious that the long dead writers of those ancient books had a radically different comprehension of the cosmos and for us to fawn over their literature and concepts, especially now that we see our predicament clearly, is disloyalty and even treason against the living.

[shunyadragon]

This is quite long but it explains all you need to know about the rapidly approaching global catastrophe. Civilisation as we know it is about to end. Jesus is not coming to save us.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6pFDu7lLV4

That is the same line Chicken Little has been running around for quite some time. The problem is whether it is meaningful or simply an exercise in sarcasm pegging the needle in the ridiculous.

[Cow Poke]

Jesus is not coming to save us.

Well, not ALL of us.

[Cow Poke]

This is quite long but it explains all you need to know about the rapidly approaching global catastrophe. Civilisation as we know it is about to end.

That happened after the invention of fire*, electricity and air conditioning, too.



*yes, I'm being facetious about the "invention" of fire.

[firstfloor]

This is quite long but it explains all you need to know about the rapidly approaching global catastrophe. Civilisation as we know it is about to end. Jesus is not coming to save us.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6pFDu7lLV4

[shunyadragon]

It's not so much that you did not explain yourself, so much as your position has no evidential support.

I understand you, I think. I'm just bewildered as to why you are saying it; I did not expect it. The link doesn't help, because it doesn't support the notion of a long term warming trend at all.

The graph at the link above does not show a warming trend extending from ~18 to 20,000 years up to the present; it rather shows the well known warming from out of the last glacial maximum up to the Holocene; and then the comparatively stable Holocene climate. There is no indication of that graph of any longer warming trend. Zilch. In that graph, the deglaciation warming ends about 10,000 years ago. This should not be news.

A higher resolution and more careful look over the Holocene would indicate the much slower cooling trend since the Holocene Climate Optimum, which is actually what evidence indicates would still be at work in the absence of anthropogenic effects.

The temperature graph on that page is the Vostok core deuterium temperature, as determined by Petit et al (1999) and plotted by the page author... and the rest of that website is outright pseudoscience with respect to climate. Not an encouraging source. But in any case, here's the data set the webpage uses: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/vostok/jouz_tem.htm

Cheers -- sylas

Let's clarify some things. I apologize for any miscommunication.

(1) I belief we are in a warming trend or climate change influenced by human activities. I am uncertain to what degree thus current trend is measurable specifically for human influence.

(2) I consider we are currently in a plateau at the apex of long term cycle ~100,000to 120,000, and not necessarily in the beginning of a cooling trend of that cycle. I believe your referenced graph http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/vostok/jouz_tem.htm supports this, Something natural not human influence is delaying the cooling trend. Note in your reference graph previous cycles showed a sharp rise and an equally sharp decline in temperatures at the apex of the cycle, and this cycle doe not show that. I want make it clear I reference the graph information, and not the website's argument against the human influence on climate change. Like your Vostok graph, both indicate we are in the plateau before the cooling trend.

(3) Your argument that the Holocene Optimum is the apex of the cycle leading to the cooling trend is indirect, and may or may not be true. I believe the long term graphs show similar ups and downs in the temperature range over the long term plateau shown on the two graphs without the distinct beginning of a cooling trend.

(4) The problem with the range of overlapping of shorter term cycles and normal chaotic variation can complicate claims of how much influence humans have on climate change. We can enter a significant cooling trend, and still be under the influence of human impacts on climate change, and give the naysayers misleading support that humans do not influence the changes in the climate.

(5) I do believe the natural variations and trends are the stronger force in climate variation based on past trends and can be in and of themselves far more devastating then the human influence. Yes we should do what we can to reduce human influence (these efforts probably will have more influence on the quality of life, pollution, and human energy needs and use, then climate change.) , but because of the population growth trends in the third world and the demands for energy, the math is not there that we can change the trends of human influence significantly. Our efforts should be heavily into how we can deal with the potential of both natural and human climate changes.