[frethack]

This confuse me somewhat. "No, I do not doubt that CO2 is a contributor to current and past climate, but I do believe that much more research is needed to determine what is natural and what is anthropogenic."

Im not sure exactly what is confusing about this statement.  There are natural and anthropogenic forcings at work in the current climate.  I do not doubt that CO2 is a part of the anthropogenic portion.  I do, however, think that the various forcing agents need to be qualitatively defined...how *MUCH* is CO2 contributing...how *MUCH* is solar activity contributing...how *MUCH* is an internal response by from the AMO, PDO, IOD, ENSO, etc to external forcings.

This isnt a case of "natural variability *OR* anthropogenics", it is a case of "natural variability *AND* anthropogenics".  The fact that our current climate is the product of anthropogenic forcing and natural variability is not a controversial statement, and there is no need to treat it as such. 

Ice cores provide evidence for variation in greenhouse gas concentrations over the past 800,000 years. Both CO2 and CH4 vary between glacial and interglacial phases, and concentrations of these gases correlate strongly with temperature. Before the ice core record, direct measurements do not exist.

Thank you for the historical lesson on CO2, but this is my area of study, and I know it very well.  As you stated, the past 800,000 years have relatively stable CO2 levels that appear to correlate well with temperature when their magnitudes are not considered, but one of the tenets of science is that correlation is not causation.  Just because something moves in relative sync does not mean that one is causing the other.  They could be affected by an outside forcing.  If CO2 is the main driver of temperature, which you have stated that you believe, then please explain to me this article:

Evidence for warmer interglacials in East Antarctic ice cores, Sime, L. C., Wolff, E. W., Oliver, K. I. C. & Tindall, J. C. Nature 462, 342–345 (2009).

This if from a very well respected author that was published in arguably one of the two most respected peer reviewed journals in science.  Sime hypothesizes that the Eemian interglacial, the one preceding the current Holocene, was as much as 6^οC *warmer* than present, casting doubts on the previous estimates of 3^οC warmer.  In either case, both estimates are significantly warmer than present, but CO2 estimates were over 100ppm *less* than today. 

Please keep in mind that I am not arguing that CO2 plays no part in climate or temperature, but I *am* arguing that there is a large natural component that you are not considering in past climates.

[yor_on]

Okay, what I found confusing was you saying, if I got you correctly, that it's not anthropogenic (man made). Looking at the ice cores the increase seems very well correlated to our industrial revolution?

How else would you like to define those increases in ppm?
They seem very well correlated to me?

If you agree on CO2 being able to 'drive' a Global warming as it increases it seems to me that the question only might be what started it, right?

[frethack]

Okay, what I found confusing was you saying, if I got you correctly, that it's not anthropogenic (man made). Looking at the ice cores the increase seems very well correlated to our industrial revolution?

How else would you like to define those increases in ppm?
They seem very well correlated to me?

If you agree on CO2 being able to 'drive' a Global warming as it increases it seems to me that the question only might be what started it, right?

I do agree with you that CO2 has risen since the Industrial Revolution, and that the rise is largely from burning of hydrocarbons.  As far as I am concerned, this is indisputable. 

But, as stated above, because the rise in CO2 is coincident with the rise in temperature does not mean that CO2 is the cause of the temperature rise.  There has also been a sharp rise in solar activity since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, and solar effects on atmospheric/oceanic circulation are very poorly understood. 

Natural variability is not the only culprit.  Carbon dioxide is not the only culprit.  They work in both separately and in tandem.  This is not a question of anthropegenics *OR* natural variability, because *BOTH* are at work in the current climate system.  The question is how much is each contributing to current climate change.

[yor_on]

You know Frethack. I agree with you that there might, probably are, other contributions than CO2 creating our Global warming, as well as relationships that we might miss. Would it be Henrik Svensmark's theory presenting the sun and cosmic rays as the main culprit that you are thinking of?

Both Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis‐Christensen have been heavily criticized by Peter Laut,  physicist and former scientific advisor on climate change for The Danish Energy Agency, for presenting claims without a proper foundation.

Peter Laut about both Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis‐Christensen's works. Peter Laut and Peter Laut about Eigil Friis‐Christensen

And finally a critical look, primary on the methods used by Henrik Svensmark. Henrik Svensmark

Doesn't mean that Henrik Svensmark is necessarily wrong, it's more a discussion about how much of his proposal that will fit in. On the other hand I'm not exactly sure what more you might consider as contributing?

I do think the sun can have a role in it, although we might disagree on the extent for what's happening now, and I too suspect that we are missing things, and relations. For example there are new research suggesting that "Carbon dioxide emissions produced from the burning of fossil fuels will produce a 3 percent reduction in the density of Earth's outermost atmosphere by 2017, according scientists from the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and Pennsylvania State University (PSU)." And that puts a totally new spin to how our atmosphere might behave if it's correct. So we haven't seen the end of new discovery's yet I think.

But as long both you and me agree on the inherent danger in our man made CO2 emissions I think that those would be a good start reducing? No matter if there are other factors playing in CO2 is something we can do something about, now.

[frethack]

Read the papers that I posted.  Especially the Poore/Quinn/Richey papers.  Solar affected cloud nucleation (Svensmark) has nothing to do with this.  It is the suns role in the migration of the Intertropical Convergence Zone, for which there is very good evidence, both on decadal/centennial scales and on millennial scales.  This very much effects the transport volume of the Gulf Stream and the AMOC.  There are also very good links between solar activity and the East Asian Monsoon.  Try reading the papers I presented.

There is also evidence that could possibly link EUV radiation with stratospheric cloud formation, but this is tenuous at the moment.  For the most part, stratospheric clouds tend to form a blanket that reflects longwave radiation back toward the earth, but as I said, this is not something that I would feel remotely comfortable presenting as fact.

As far as the Svensmark experiments go, they have one planned at CERN this year under better controlled conditions, so I will reserve judgment until then.

[yor_on]

Okay, I'm starting to understand where your specific interest lies now.

It's a widespread subject you're looking at. I've also wondered about it thinking of the melting of Greenland and the arctic, and possibly also of the Antarctic, although that seems more improbable/unpredictable. That as the gulf stream is quite important to our Northern Countries. I saw some ideas though suggesting that the overall warming might equalize it, if it ever came to happen, don't remember where now? I'm still unsure how you see the sun connecting to what we have seen the last century(s) though?

It would be nice if you presented your view.
Or maybe you think you already have

Have you seen this? Transpolar currents disappear in the Arctic Ocean under a doubling of CO2. July 2009
==

Frethack, another thing. I read you saying "Therein lies the conundrum.  We *KNOW* through physics and chemistry that CO2 has radiative effects and is a GHG, but there is no research (that Ive ever read or heard of anyway) that states X amount of CO2 should provide Y amount of warming.  It is an unknown quantity, as far as I can tell."

Don't know exactly how you thought there. Maybe you mean that there are a lot of unknowns to what possible correlations there might be? But there is a statistical correlation, as far as I understand?

Take a look here for a simplified approach to the correlation between CO2 and temperature. And as always when I find a good site, sooner or later others find it too, and comment. And it's the comments that gives those sites so much substance. CO2 <-> Temperature.
==

Perhaps it's the question about which came first?
Temperature or CO2?

Doesn't matter I think, we know that CO2 stores heat, and deliver the same through motion colliding with other molecules (kinetic energy). The less CO2 molecules, the less heat released through that, right? And it's easy to see that we're the one increasing the ppm (parts per million) from 260 and 280 ppm during the preceding 10,000 years to around 380, and accelerating, under the last 250 years.

=

[yor_on]

Here are CO2 ppm from 1959 to 2009 (Parts Per Million of CO2 in the atmosphere) "Data from March 1958 through April 1974 have been obtained by C. David Keeling of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO) and were obtained from the Scripps website (scrippsco2.ucsd.edu). The estimated uncertainty in the annual mean is the standard deviation of the differences of annual mean values determined independently by  NOAA/ESRL and the Scripps Institution of Oceanography."

year     mean      unc
  1959   315.98     0.12
  1960   316.91     0.12
  1961   317.64     0.12
  1962   318.45     0.12
  1963   318.99     0.12
  1964   319.62     0.12
  1965   320.04     0.12
  1966   321.38     0.12
  1967   322.16     0.12
  1968   323.04     0.12
  1969   324.62     0.12
  1970   325.68     0.12
  1971   326.32     0.12
  1972   327.45     0.12
  1973   329.68     0.12
  1974   330.17     0.12
  1975   331.08     0.12
  1976   332.05     0.12
  1977   333.78     0.12
  1978   335.41     0.12
  1979   336.78     0.12
  1980   338.68     0.12
  1981   340.11     0.12
  1982   341.22     0.12
  1983   342.84     0.12
  1984   344.41     0.12
  1985   345.87     0.12
  1986   347.19     0.12
  1987   348.98     0.12
  1988   351.45     0.12
  1989   352.90     0.12
  1990   354.16     0.12
  1991   355.48     0.12
  1992   356.27     0.12
  1993   356.95     0.12
  1994   358.64     0.12
  1995   360.62     0.12
  1996   362.36     0.12
  1997   363.47     0.12
  1998   366.50     0.12
  1999   368.14     0.12
  2000   369.40     0.12
  2001   371.07     0.12
  2002   373.17     0.12
  2003   375.78     0.12
  2004   377.52     0.12
  2005   379.76     0.12
  2006   381.85     0.12
  2007   383.71     0.12
  2008   385.57     0.12
  2009   387.35     0.12

==

For a fuller explanation you can go Here.

[frethack]

Sorry I havent replied sooner, I had two exams today and another tomorrow.

I dont dispute that CO2 has risen sharply, and the vast majority of it is from fossil fuels.  I wouldnt consider that disputable.

Here is the graph that you posted, but Ive labelled the past three interglacials.  Thats quite an increase in CO2.


The X axis on this graph is opposite to that of the first graph (and Ive labelled the interglacials).  Its from one the papers I posted above:

Evidence for warmer interglacials in East Antarctic ice cores, Sime, L. C., Wolff, E. W., Oliver, K. I. C. & Tindall, J. C. Nature 462, 342–345 (2009)


Notice the temperature difference between the Sangamonian and the Holocene when compared to the CO2 difference.  Also notice that the past three interglacials have been comparatively warmer than present.

Gotta get to sleep...test...ugh

[yor_on]

Yes, it's interesting frethack. But how fast did those temperatures and ppm:s move?
Today we're speaking about a change of a couple of centuries, and as I said , accelerating constantly. And, we can easily connect it to humans. The changes you are looking on are not the same scenario to me. Although it might very well show us new connections that we might have missed it won't describe this situation, well, as I see it.

[yor_on]

It's this paper right Evidence for warmer interglacials in East Antarctic ice cores 

You are basing it on a preliminary one paper here, very interesting, but still with large uncertainties, as they themselves conlude.

"Climate reconstructions usually assume a simple linear relationship between these isotope ratios and temperature. But Sime's team says that although that relationship holds up for the cold glacial periods, it does not work so well during the warmer interglacials. The scientists measured the isotope ratios in three ice cores from across East Antarctica, each of which dates back to at least 340,000 years ago. They then compared those results with predicted isotope distributions derived from a global climate model.

They found that higher average temperatures were required to reconcile observations and model experiments. "The available evidence only fits together if we assume peak temperatures around six degrees above current values," says Sime. "We didn't expect this at all." The team believes that the relationship between temperature and the isotopic composition of water vapour changes as climate warms. For example, the isotopic signatures of ice cores depend on the seasonal distribution of precipitation. A change in the time of year when most snow falls could lead to biases in temperature reconstruction, says Sime, whose team reports its findings in Nature. Six degrees of trouble. Unlike the rapidly warming Antarctic Peninsula, mainland Antarctica has so far been relatively resilient to climate change. But if past responses to warming are a guide to the future, this could change. "We don't know if the present state of the climate system might allow for a six-degree warming in East Antarctica," says Sime, "but it is not impossible."

Yep, but how long a period of time did it take? Does it fit with ours observations from now?
What were the ppm:s of CO2 under that time period yearly?
Methane?

Do you have a simple correlation to show me over those relations, and its time scheme naturally. Without a similar time scenario it will be very hard to draw any conclusions towards if we can compare any of it with what's happening today. But it will even so give a new twist to what we think we know, if proven correct.
==

"Warming, then a cold snap. Around 14,000 years ago (about 13,000 radiocarbon years ago), there was a rapid global warming and moistening of climates, perhaps occurring within the space of only a few years or decades. In many respects, this phase seems to have resembled some of the earlier interstadials that had occurred so many times before during the glacial period. Conditions in many mid-latitude areas appear to have been about as warm as they are today, although many other areas - whilst warmer than during the Late Glacial Cold Stage - seem to have remained slightly cooler than at present. Forests began to spread back, and the ice sheets began to retreat. However, after a few thousand years of recovery, the Earth was suddenly plunged back into a new and very short-lived ice age known as the Younger Dryas. Although the Younger Dryas did not affect everywhere in the world, it destroyed the returning forests in the north and led to a brief resurgence of the ice sheets.

This map by D. Peteet  shows the possible distribution of Younger Dryas cooling around the world. The main cooling event that marks the beginning of the Younger Dryas seems have occurred within less than 100 years, according to Greenland ice core data (Alley et al. 1993). After about 1,300 years of cold and aridity, the Younger Dryas seems to have ended in the space of only a few decades (various estimates from ice core climate indicators range from 20 - 70 years for this sudden transition) when conditions became as warm as they are today. Around half of the warming seems to have occurred in the space of a single span of 15 years, according to the latest detailed analyses of the Greenland ice core record (Taylor et al. 1997).

From A quick background to the last ice age. 
===

And about Methane as the 'clincher' of the climatic bid on our Earth.

"To find out what was happening in the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, field measurements, ice expeditions and a helicopter survey were conducted to measure methane levels in ESAS waters. They took 5100 samples from 1080 stations, the largest database for any ocean methane study. They found widespread supersaturation over the region. Most of the bottom waters are supersaturated and over half of surface waters are supersaturated. In some areas, the saturation levels reached at least 250 times that of background levels in the summer and 1,400 times higher in the winter.

To find out how much methane is escaping into the atmosphere, they measured the flux of methane at the ocean surface. Methane levels were elevated overall and the seascape was dotted with more than 100 hotspots. A helicopter survey further confirmed this, finding methane levels were 5 to 10% greater at 1800 metres height. Methane is not only being dissolved in the water, it's bubbling out into the atmosphere.

These findings tell us the large underwater permafrost "lid" over the East Siberian Arctic Shelf is clearly perforated and methane is escaping to the atmosphere. Why is this a concern? The impact of positive feedback from ESAS methane is not currently included in climate model projections. However, we can deduce the role of methane feedback by looking at past climate change. About 11,600 years ago, the planet warmed very suddenly. This corresponded with strong increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases, especially Arctic methane (Petrenko 2009, Nisbet 2009). This indicates that the permafrost is sensitive to warming temperatures, having released it's methane in the past. This gives us much reason to be concerned about the trajectory of the vast methane stores leaking from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf."

So we seem to have indication of Earth being able to make very quick changes. And this time it's us creating the 'tipping'.

"If we reach this level for emissions of CO2 (double of today), we will have dramatic changes in the whole ocean circulation in the Northern Atlantic, the Nordic Sea and Arctic, with strong impact on society and economy. The ice will also gradually disappear; we were the first who pointed this out already in a study from 2004, Johannessen et al. 2004 attached, see figs.8-9 (mentioned as Editors choice in Science). Ola M. Johannessen has also just published another work, attached, that shows a close connection between increasing CO2 and decreasing ice, fig. 1 and which shows that the ice disappears far more rapidly than the IPCC models predicts, fig. 2. Use of a statistic equation over the last 50 years (in the text under fig 1) shows potentially that all the ice, summer and winter will be gone if CO2 reaches the value 765 ppmv, also a doubling from today´s level.

Both that the current system changes dramatically and that the ice also disappears under a doubling of CO2 show clearly the necessity that we have to reduce the CO2 emissions drastically and that a new effective agreement must be signed "in Copenhagen in December". If not, we must start to adapt to “another world” than the one we have today.

Then we have studied how this current system is changing under a doubling of CO2 and we simulated the mean current for the period 2050-2080, fig. 12 b.

For this period we have used wind and other meteorological variables from our large scale (250km solution) global climate model (Bergen Climate Model) to run a more detailed (90km) ocean model – the same as in fig. 12 a. The global warming (2xCO2) had a dramatic effect on the current system. See fig 12 b.

5.1 The important Transpolar Current ceased.

5.2 The Beaufort circulation became much weaker.

5.3 The Greenland Current became much weaker.

5.4 Less inflow of the Gulf Stream between Faroe-Shetland.

5.5 The reason for this is primary that wind etc has changed under a 2xCO2 situation.

" From Norway/Russia arctic-roos.org   
===

And finally this about the Antarctic Is Pine Island Glacier the Weak Underbelly of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet

Why I'm lifting that in is because of the topology, that combined with methane releases and water tunnels under the ice might start to transport the ice sheets out into deeper waters where they wil break and float away. It's an old mechanism, known since a long time. Look at http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/sea.level.faq.html for a description of the topology.

I agree that we have a lot to learn, and that there are a lot of unknowns, but its happening now. Debating it won't stop our emissions, neither will it make people realize what's happening outside their windows. Read this and you will see why I'm worried.
Sea levels

"In its latest report, the IPCC has predicted up to 59 cm of sea level rise by the end of this century. But realclimate soon revealed a few problems.

First, although the temperature scenarios of IPCC project a maximum warming of 6.4 ºC (Table SPM3), the upper limit of sea level rise has been computed for a warming of only 5.2 ºC – which reduced the estimate by about 15 cm. Second, the IPCC chose to compute sea level rise up to the year 2095 rather than 2100 – just to cut off another 5 cm. Worse, the IPCC report shows that over the past 40 years, sea level has in fact risen 50% more than predicted by its models – yet these same models are used uncorrected to predict the future! And finally, the future projections assume that the Antarctic ice sheet gains mass, thus lowering sea level, rather at odds with past ice sheet behaviour.**

Some scientists within IPCC warned early that all this could lead to a credibility problem, but the IPCC decided to go ahead anyway.

Nobody cared about this.

I mention this because there is a lesson in it. IPCC would never have published an implausibly high 3 meter upper limit like this, but it did not hesitate with the implausibly low 59 cm. That is because within the IPCC culture, being “alarmist” is bad and being “conservative” (i.e. underestimating the potential severity of things) is good.

Note that this culture is the opposite of “erring on the safe side” (assuming it is better to have overestimated the problem and made the transition to a low-carbon society a little earlier than needed, rather than to have underestimated it and sunk coastal cities and entire island nations). Just to avoid any misunderstandings here: I am squarely against exaggerating climate change to “err on the safe side”. I am deeply convinced that scientists must avoid erring on any side, they must always give the most balanced assessment they are capable of."

===

[yor_on]

Just something that made me wonder anew about of the probability of Antarctic becoming something even more important in the near future. No, not the methane this time. if one read Pine island glacier

"Although the last physical obstacle to continued melting and retreat of the Pine Island Glacier has been breached, the ice's fate remains murky, says glaciologist David Holland of New York University in New York City.

That's because glaciologists aren't sure what got the glacial retreat started in the first place, he notes. It wasn't the greenhouse simply warming the ocean, researchers agree. Instead, shifting winds around Antarctica in recent decades may have driven warmer waters up to the ice and dislodged it from its perch on the ridge. But what caused the winds to shift? Global warming? The ozone hole? Random variability? Glaciologists—and policymakers—would like to know."

Now if I look at that Norwegian/Russian proposal above? Isn't that what they are talking about? "5.5 The reason for this is primary that wind etc has changed under a 2xCO2 situation." And if the wind and streams would change for the Arctic, what will that do with the Antarctic?

I would really like to see a study done just on what might be a global 'tipping threshold' Frethack. And there studies like the one you pointed me to should be of the utmost interest, not because the scenarios would need to be the exact same, they just have to point us to how much 'forcing' is needed for Earth to change its climate balance into a new direction. As a general description, not absolutely defining the exact mechanism for it, but describing what would be needed in form of temperature, ppm:s possibly, and other circumstances creating those earlier 'tipping points'. Then we at least would have a general idea about what to watch out for.

And maybe that is your interest too? As it is I'm more and more wondering where that invisible border goes? And if it is possible to define a data model of it?

'Ice loss from accelerating glaciers, called dynamic thinning, is a much faster way of losing ice from an ice sheet than melting alone. We think this is what happened to some of the great ice sheets at the end of the last Ice Age,' explains Pritchard.

'Our results show that ice loss is happening in many parts of Antarctica and Greenland. We're surprised at just how widespread this is,' he adds. Some researchers have suggested that changing wind patterns have re-directed ocean currents south and brought warm water into direct contact with ice in Antarctica, a view supported by the authors. Some of the fastest thinning glaciers such as Pine Island Glacier and neighbouring Smith and Thwaites Glacier in West Antarctica are thinning by as much as 9 metres per year.'

And "The first complete map of the lakes beneath Antarctica's ice sheets reveals the continent's secret water network is far more dynamic than we thought. This could be acting as a powerful lubricant beneath glaciers, contributing to sea level rise" subglacial lakes across Antarctica.

Those circumstances all hang together sort of. And according to Barber at the University of Manitoba (Canada's Research Chair in Arctic System Science) the arctic might already be defined as "a seasonally ice-free Arctic now, because multiyear sea ice is the barrier to the use and development of the Arctic." Rotten Ice.

So there are several sources agreeing on the Arctic changing and loosing its ice. Faster than any predictions made by the IPCC.

[yor_on]

I read a pdf from James Hansen recently (A very famous Climatologist). In it he discuss Solar variations and their importance amongst other things. It is quite nice to read but what struck me as rather unpleasant was the way climate deniers seems to have jumped on the band wagon sabotaging climate research. There is a clear border between having another opinion and arguing for that and sabotaging data collection and work. In it he writes

"The nature of messages that I receive from the public, and the fact that NASA Headquarters received more than 2500 inquiries in the past week about our possible “manipulation” of global temperature data, suggest that the concerns are more political than scientific. Perhaps the messages are intended as intimidation, expected to have a chilling effect on researchers in climate change. The recent “success” of climate contrarians in using the pirated East Anglia e-mails to cast doubt on the reality of global warming* seems to have energized other deniers.

I am now inundated with broad FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests for my correspondence, with substantial impact on my time and on others in my office. I believe these to be fishing expeditions, aimed at finding some statement(s), likely to be taken out of context, which they would attempt to use to discredit climate science."

A rather sneaky and underhanded way of intimidating and obstructing climate research. On the other hand, why should I be surprised? It seems that most of those arguing came to the ball plane with their view already set in concrete. And when logic fails to win a argument?

To me it seems a very American way of approach, well used in politics, and as most over there seems to view climate as a primary political subject And in a way they are correct i guess. If we want to make a change it certainly will need political decisions to make it happen. And I'm not talking about the jokes we made so far, like the Kyoto treatise or that failed Copenhagen deal. I mean real changes that we all will feel in our wallets, at least for the short time. But that might promise our kids some resemblance of a continuance.

Not that I expect anything like it of course

Temperature of Science

[yor_on]

So, some say that we don't have to worry for the tundra and ocean releasing methane, others say the opposite. Did you know that in 2007 we expected the Arctic to be ice free in summer time at the very earliest by 2100. But 2008 some others found that it may become ice free as early as 2011 to 2015?  Here is a new report from 2010 warning that methane is leaking from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf into the atmosphere at an alarming rate.

It is made by by University of Alaska’s International Arctic Research Centre and the Russian Academy of Sciences and in their report they state amongst other things that "Remobilization to the atmosphere of only a small fraction of the methane held in East Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS) sediments could trigger abrupt climate warming, yet it is believed that sub-sea permafrost acts as a lid to keep this shallow methane reservoir in place.

Here, we show that more than 5000 at-sea observations of dissolved methane demonstrates that greater than 80% of ESAS bottom waters and greater than 50% of surface waters are supersaturated with methane regarding to the atmosphere. The current atmospheric venting flux, which is composed of a diffusive component and a gradual ebullition component, is on par with previous estimates of methane venting from the entire World Ocean." Extensive Methane Venting to the Atmosphere..

And here you can get a free presentation from the National Science Foundation. 2010.

Did you get that? The Methane resting in those shallow Arctic continental shelf are getting loose. It consists of decayed vegetation from those times when the continental shelf was above the water, and if it gets loose some estimates is that 'an amount of methane equal to 12 times the current level in the atmosphere could be released, according to Shakhova.' And we're speaking of methane now, not CO2. Methane, that over a twenty years period can hold around twenty five to thirty times the heat capacity of CO2.

So there I expect a 'tipping point', at least as I see it. And as the arctic becomes ice free more or less and the the ice doesn't reflect we will get a hotter Arctic accelerating this process and the Tundra will follow. A study by David Lawrence of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) 2008 reported that "The rate of climate warming over northern Alaska, Canada, and Russia could more than triple during periods of rapid sea ice loss." Here.

"Lawrence and his colleagues then used the model to study the influence of accelerated warming on permafrost and found that in areas where permafrost is already at risk, such as central Alaska, a period of abrupt sea-ice loss could lead to rapid soil thaw. This situation, when summer thaw extends more deeply than the next winter's freeze, can lead to a talik, which is a layer of permanently unfrozen soil sandwiched between the seasonally frozen layer above and the perennially frozen layer below. A talik allows heat to build more quickly in the soil, hastening the long-term thaw of permafrost.

Arctic soils are believed to hold 30 percent or more of all the carbon stored in soils worldwide. Although researchers are uncertain what will happen to this carbon as soils warm and permafrost thaws, one possibility is that the thaw will initiate significant additional emissions of carbon dioxide or the more potent greenhouse gas, methane.

About a quarter of the Northern Hemisphere's land contains permafrost, defined as soil that remains below 0 degrees C (32 degrees F) for at least two years. Recent warming has degraded large sections of permafrost, with pockets of soil collapsing as the ice within it melts. The results include buckled highways, destabilized houses, and "drunken forests" of trees that lean at wild angles."

Anybody want to guess what this thawing may do to those pipelines laid on the 'frozen' tundra. They already have a leakage of near one third of all methane they transport.

"The East Siberian Arctic Shelf is a methane-rich area that encompasses more than 2 million square kilometers of seafloor in the Arctic Ocean. It is more than three times as large as the nearby Siberian wetlands, which have been considered the primary Northern Hemisphere source of atmospheric methane. Shakhova's research results show that the East Siberian Arctic Shelf is already a significant methane source, releasing 7 teragrams of methane yearly, which is as much as is emitted from the rest of the ocean. A teragram is equal to about 1.1 million tons.

"Our concern is that the subsea permafrost has been showing signs of destabilization already," she said. "If it further destabilizes, the methane emissions may not be teragrams, it would be significantly larger."

Shakhova notes that the Earth's geological record indicates that atmospheric methane concentrations have varied between about .3 to .4 parts per million during cold periods to .6 to .7 parts per million during warm periods. Current average methane concentrations in the Arctic average about 1.85 parts per million, the highest in 400,000 years, she said. Concentrations above the East Siberian Arctic Shelf are even higher."

Here is another article from 2009 describing what we think we know. Methane.

And finally a cost estimate of our loss due to the Arctic disappearing, in forms of cost for adapting our human world to the climate change. The costs..

And if you're not worrying yet
Maybe you should, just that little bit?

[Mazurka]

I have not added anything to this thread yet, partly as i have ot had time to put a considered repsonse together (and chase all of the referrences)

I did however post a link to lecture to the Geology Society (of London)about the PETM in the geology forum.  I think it neatly addressess the question of why higher temperatures in the past may not be related to CO2, whereas the PETM was, which makes the PETM (and its consequences) all the more interesting to study.

[yor_on]

Why not post a link here too, or is it pay per view?
It sounds interesting.
==

Okay I found it. This one, right
Challenged by Carbon: The Oil Industry and Climate Change

And here is a written extract of the speech for those like me with a slow connection.
Challenged by Carbon: The Oil Industry and Climate Change 
 

[Mazurka]

(having been chastised on a different forum for posting the same link too many times I have always been cautious about "spamming" a board with links ever since.  It is probably more appropriate here anyway)

I would be interested in what you think - there are some strong arguments there as well as discussion as to what the oil industry may be able to do to help.

 

[yor_on]

Don't really know, I think that we will have to spend as much energy creating the structure for storing CO2 as we will get storing it, strange sounding that one What I meant was that the costs, energy used, etc would produce as much new CO2 probably as we would get out of the atmosphere, short time at least. And I don't really belive in 'large scale solutions'. We have two Countries constantly failing in implementing them, China and Russia, and America of course And we still can't guarantee storage of nuclear wastes, even though we've tried different solutions for over fifty years now?

And it seems to me that the time estimates (storage) might even become longer for our CO2? F.ex  Carbon Dioxide Sequestriation by Aqueous Mineral Carbonation which seems a good idea initially will take a lot of energy and money to build and to keep on working. Maybe you are thinking of other ideas? I couldn't listen to the pod-cast as it kept stopping/hacking, so there might have been ideas there that I missed?

For myself I would prefer biological solutions like with algae possibly, whatever that quickly can take up CO2 like CO2-eating algae turns cement maker green  Small solutions that you can imply cheaply and that will work with the environment instead of playing Jules Verne Terra Forming an already 'Terra Formed' planet. When we're allowed and forced to solve problems on our own we often find means to do so.

And that goes for stopping our CO2 too. We won't really know what solutions we will find until we're forced to find them, sort of So I do have hopes for us, but they are consistent on us deciding to really stop the man-made CO2. If we fail that? Well, we will see.

[yor_on]

I'm moving to my essay instead as his thread seems to have fallen asleep. If you're curious about methane and what's happening with the Northern reaches Like the Arctic? Take a look Methane aka 'natural gas' and the Arctic.

[frethack]

Sorry I havent posted in a while.  The week before spring break was REALLY busy, and I havent had time to post since Ive been back.

You are basing it on a preliminary one paper here, very interesting, but still with large uncertainties, as they themselves conlude.

Most paleoclimate papers have relatively large uncertainties, both in dating and in their isotope work.  As I stated when I originally posted the paper, this is a new study but even previous studies show a temp difference of about 3C between the Holocene and Sangamon.

My whole point throughout this thread has been about uncertainty.  Young science...lots of uncertainty...this creates lots of rapid change in what we think we know.  In fifty years climate science will very likely be unrecognizable to a researcher who began his work in the 1990's.

Do you have a simple correlation to show me over those relations, and its time scheme naturally. Without a similar time scenario it will be very hard to draw any conclusions towards if we can compare any of it with what's happening today. But it will even so give a new twist to what we think we know, if proven correct.

Please clarify this a bit so that I can answer.

This map by D. Peteet shows the possible distribution of Younger Dryas cooling around the world.

The map didnt show up, but Id be pretty interested in seeing it.  If it is from the same era as the Taylor paper you posted below, then there has been a LOT of change, especially since so much research has been conducted in mainland China and the west Pacific the past few years. 

Around half of the warming seems to have occurred in the space of a single span of 15 years, according to the latest detailed analyses of the Greenland ice core record (Taylor et al. 1997).

Though there are very few events that are quite as drastic as the Younger Dryas, there are plenty that occur relatively quickly...sometimes within just a few years to a decade.  That is the nature of climate...rapid fluctuations superimposed over more gradual changes (which then superimposed...).  The 9.1, 8.2, and 7.1 ka events, the transition from late to middle Holocene, the Dark Ages, and coolings associated with the Oort, Wolf, Sporer, Maunder, and Dalton minimums all transitioned to a cooler phase within the span of a decade or so.  Also, I can assure you that 1997 is not the latest detailed analysis of the Younger Dryas.  Rosemarie Came and Delia Oppo have done much more recent work, as well as a host of other authors.  The technology, methods, and resolution of climate science have changed drastically since 1997. 

Not to mention this paper (its free to download I think):

Firestone et al Evidence for an extraterrestrial impact 12, 900 years ago that contributed to the megafaunal extinctions and the Younger Dryas cooling. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104, 16016–16021.

The YD may have already been in its early stages when the impact occurred, so I dont think that there is enough compelling evidence to say that the impact triggered the YD.  However, I cannot see how it was not a contributor.

I did however post a link to lecture to the Geology Society (of London)about the PETM in the geology forum.  I think it neatly addressess the question of why higher temperatures in the past may not be related to CO2, whereas the PETM was, which makes the PETM (and its consequences) all the more interesting to study.

I will read the study that you posted, but it may be a bit before I can read it completely.  On the surface, it seems that even though GHGs may be responsible for the PETM, there are many other considerations to highlight, such as the lack of a matured Atlantic basin, accelerated rates of seafloor spreading/rifting/orogenics (which contribute to CO2), lack of polar landmasses and ice, drastically different ocean circulation, etc.  As soon as I read it Ill post more...its a very interesting topic.