Time for more thread.
Before north and south America were joined at the Isthmus the Pacific flowed into the Atlantic. When it closed there was a very large drought in Africa and our ancestors were forced out of the trees to forage on the Savannah.
A few million years ago these creatures had to adapt or perish when confronted by climate change and it has turned out well for humanity.
That’s not logical, you don’t know how it might have turned out otherwise. Might as well have turned out better. Do you think humanity is in a good place right now, global warming or not?
Thanks for taking your time to answer MSF. I’m aware of the theory of changing ocean sirculation patterns causing the transition to a colder climate in the pliocene, but as the transition took place over millions of years which happens to coincide with the gradual southward continental drift of Antarctica – resulting in a more and more ice cover, and thus higher and higher total earth albedo – could the MAIN driver of climate change in pliocene be the southward movement of Antarctica, rather than change in ocean circulation pattern which seems a more complex explanation?
Doesn’t change in ocean pattern happen more abrupt, well on a geological time scale? The continental drift of Antarctica is certainly a very slow process.
It would be interesting to see what influence change of total earth albedo (caused by more on more ice cover in Antarctica) would do to climate in the pliocene, and if it indeed could be the driver of the climate transition to pleistocene climate. Just beeing curious.
As far as I know Antarctica has been pretty much stationary, while South America, Africa, Australia and New Zealand have been the ones to move north, and away from it. At the time when all these continents were lumped up into Gondwana, there was a much bigger continental mass overlapping the south pole, yet the world was significantly warmer.
But it is possible that the climatic isolation of the Antarctic continent over the south pole (once the Australian passage opened up) enabled ice to cover it, and that the overall effect, including the albedo, caused Greenland and the north pole to become cold enough to ice over as well, again increasing albedo, etc…
According to my old geomorphology textbook (Summerfield, M. 1991. Global Geomorphology. Longman Scientific, Harlow, U.K.), The passage between Australia and Antarctica first opened ~50 million years ago, during the Eocene, when Australia first started to move north. Antarctica was by then already at its present position. The first evidence of sharp cooling in the southern Ocean is from ~40 MYA, and by 30 MYA in the Oligocene there is evidence of glaciation.
However, what I do remember from my 3rd year Botany was that there are 5-6 MYA Nothofagus fossils found on the Antarctic continent, so the climate would have had to be benign enough for hardwood trees to grow there relatively recently (in a geological time scale).
West Antarctica has certainly been ice free several times during the pliocene according to a 2009 paper (if I recall correct) (drilling into sediments under the ice).
So I guess the key question here is if the ice free (west) Antarctica in pliocene is caused by the continental position of Antarctica or the general warmer climate in pliocene. As far as I can see the climatic models for the pliocene pretty much ignores the continental positions (appart from calculation ocean circulation due to continental positions as you mention), so I guess you are correct when you state that Antarctica was pretty much in the same place (although it seems to move some on the link I presented). It would be really cool to have an new idea on climate transition in the pliocene, so I’m sad to understand it’s not very likely! Thanks anyway!
I agree with Gordo. When mass migration in Africa caused by global warming begins, they should all go to Western Europe (especially England, where they will grow grapes and people will live in happiness).
Why not? Money doesn’t have to be involved. It could just be about the loser making a statement.
But the money would go to a charity anyway.
If it doesn’t get 1.5 C cooler over the next decade I will accept that its folly trying to predict climate without a super computer. The trend over the last 30 years has been towards slightly warmer temperatures, but I believe that has come to a close and now we will experience cooler weather.
Greenland’s climate had become dryer during the 14th century and Lamb thought it likely that the winds were more easterly, whereas the winds were predominantly from the west between 1000-1100. Natural variability is much stronger than you imagine and its hubris to think otherwise.
There is little between our different viewpoints, just a degree either way, so let’s try and predict what may happen over this NH summer or next year’s winter. It’s only weather, but as global cooling kicks off I don’t want to miss a minute.
By the end of June and again in late August we should have a better idea of what is happening with Arctic ice. September will tell us if it’s becoming depleted again or whether we can expect a buildup of multi-year ice.
IOW you will admit that your claim was a wild guess and that the experts’ *did* know what they were talking about?
What is it with Greenland? It’s only a small %age of the planet’s surface.
Sure, we know that natural variability swamps trends in the short term, otherwise this discussion wouldn’t exist.
I’d say it’s more than a degree: you expect a drop of 1.5 and I expect an increase, so it’s nearer to 2. But we need to define this. A 1.5 drop for a whole year average or the whole decade? Compared with what? The 2009 average, the 2000-2009 average, the 1951-1980 GISS baseline, the 1961-1990 HADCRU baseline, or the 1901-2000 NCDC baseline? Some other?
Or a downward linear trend of 1.5 from 2010-2019?
Which dataset will we use?
Do you realise what a large change 1.5°C is?
Duh. Apparently the economic crisis and the BP oil spill are “acts of God”. Duh.
The 1901-2000 baseline is probably the best and fairest, but any other suggestions will be appreciated.
The latest temperature data is up at Roy Spencer and its down slightly, so I’m thinking that will continue and a trend should become obvious within a year.
I’m aware that a 1.5 C fall is large, but I can’t hide the decline.
I’m loving the predictions, El Gordo!
Little surprised that you went for the 20th century average though, since to get to 1.5C below this, we’d actually need a drop of about 2.0C.
And why are you still incapable of answering all the questions posed in a comment? TS also asked which data set you’ll use to determine this, and what the criteria for determining the winner is.
I propose that the criteria for a Gordo victory should be that one year in this coming decade averages 1.5C or more below the 20th century average. TrueSceptic is clearly capable of proposing his own criteria for victory, but I suggest it could be that no year in the coming decade averages less than the 20th century average. Any result in between is a draw.
I will also be taking bets. Odds are 1500/1 on a Gordo victory.
Saw somewhere that Archibald is predicting a drop of 2.2 C and it may have something to do with the length of solar cycle 23.
And you believe him because…??
Somewhat different topic: GM crops that are pesticide resistant have led farmers to use more pesticides, and now [pesticide-resistant "super-weeds" have evolved](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/business/energy-environment/04weed.html?src=me&ref=homepage)…
Archibald is predicting 20 years ahead, which as we all know can be a bit risky.
Prof. GO once suggested we try and predict five years in advance and build on that. The idea has merit.
In the seminal work of Phil Jones and Mike Hulme – ‘The Changing Temperature of Central England’ – they make an interesting observation.
The warming last century was larger in the south, than the northern half of the islands. ‘The warmth has occurred in all four seasons, but is most pronounced in the twentieth century in summer and Autumn.’ Yeah, but is that what we should expect in a warming world?
They have completely ignored Hubert Lamb’s previous work which pointed to a 50 year periodicity in the incidence of blocking highs. A major influence on UK weather totally ignored.
Britain is not the world, but if we add Greenland, Iceland and the rest of Europe, it offers a reasonable test bed for predicting future climate.
>*Prof. GO once suggested we try and predict five years in advance and build on that. The idea has merit.*
For those who want to hide trend behind short term noise. What a surprise to find el gordo as one such.
Errr, you do know that Archibald is an incompetent fantasist (or liar, who can tell?).
You still need to define your 1.5°C drop. Reread 311. I don’t mind how we define it; we just need to agree.
Here’s a heads up on an interesting story that surfaced on Politics Daily:
Faux News is refusing to air an ad that links the climate bill in the US to national security interests.
And on the Vet Voice website (the people trying to place the ad):
I actually don’t believe men of honour publish correspondence without permission. Nor do I believe men of honour would select portions of the email that don’t correspond to the entire message
So posted Tom Fuller on this very blog. In case the name is not familiar, here is Mr Fuller’s latest publication: http://tinyurl.com/369mvlk
Hat-tip to MarkB posting at DeepClimate.
Open letter: Climate change and the integrity of science
Full text of an open letter from 255 members of the US National Academy of Sciences in defence of climate research
“We also call for an end to McCarthy- like threats of criminal prosecution against our colleagues based on innuendo and guilt by association, the harassment of scientists by politicians seeking distractions to avoid taking action, and the outright lies being spread about them. Society has two choices: we can ignore the science and hide our heads in the sand and hope we are lucky, or we can act in the public interest to reduce the threat of global climate change quickly and substantively. The good news is that smart and effective actions are possible. But delay must not be an option.”
Stephen Goddard overturns established science once again.
Actually, I’m only interested in your opinion on the following:
Is this post by Goddard more, less, or equally stupid than his post in which he insisted there’s CO2 snow in antarctica?
I can only say that Goddard’s posts would fit in quite well at Denial Depot.
Stu says ‘I suggest it could be that no year in the coming decade averages less than the 20th century average. Any result in between is a draw.’
I like it.
You only quoted half of it. Do you agree with
I propose that the criteria for a Gordo victory should be that one year in this coming decade averages 1.5C or more below the 20th century average.
I haven’t yet agreed to the half that you did quote, but let’s start with the above.
‘I propose that the criteria for a Gordo victory should be that one year in this coming decade averages 1.5C or more below the 20th century average.’
Might be fun to keep a visual running.
> I propose that the criteria for a Gordo victory should be that one year in this coming decade averages 1.5C or more below the 20th century average.
I have little interest in weather; far more in climate trends.
Frank Lansnear has a guest post at Watts, illustrating the difference between NOAA and UNISYS over the European theatre.
‘Europe is not the only area where NOAA has warmer temperatures than UNISYS. NOAA appears markedly warmer than UNISYS on the Northern Hemisphere – but a little colder than UNISYS in areas of the Southern Hemisphere.’
[Chinese criticism of Australia's pace on carbon emissions management](http://www.smh.com.au/environment/chinese-lash-pm-on-emissions-inaction-20100506-ugxa.html) – along with reports of Chinese programs to slow emissions growth and become more carbon-efficient.
Same here, I’d prefer a trend stipulation, such as a -1.5 linear trend 2010-2019 as it’s more meaningful, but the one-year drop is simple and EG will lose either way.
Actually, this is still not “climate” is it? We need 30 years, so how about -1.5 linear trend 1990-2019?
I’m away for a few days. I’ll follow up on the “bet” next week.
‘Not one of the IPCC climate models behaves like the real climate system does when it comes to feedbacks during interannual climate variations…and feedbacks are what determine how serious manmade global warming will be.’
Spencer – and el Gordo – conveniently forget there are quite a number of other lines of evidence for climate sensitivity besides models. Spencer is hoping his readers won’t know that he’s apparently unable to demonstrate that the conclusions based purely on those lines of evidence are false.
All of Spencer’s efforts have been busted several times over. <10 minutes trawling Deltoid, RC, Deep Climate, Eli’s place and Tamino’s site throw up dozens of threads, all of which drive holes in his approach, assumptions and analyses big enough for a bus.
Yet el gordo and the WTFUWT groupies continue to genuflect in Spencer’s presence. Go figure…
Testing italic testing
A paper by Matsueda et al. on ‘atmospheric blocking’ gives support to the theory that as ‘global warming proceeds, the more the Euro-Atlantic and the Paciﬁc blocking frequencies decrease. The number of the Euro-Atlantic blocking decreases in all durations, whereas that of the Paciﬁc blocking decreases in especially long duration.’
Does this mean the opposite will happen if the world begins to cool?
Just one other point, the CSIRO have done some work on blocking and found that they occur most frequently in certain geographical locations: the north-east Atlantic and north-east Pacific, the Tasman Sea, south-east of Tierra del Fuego and south-east of South Africa.
They say blocking pairs form mostly in winter and ‘can profoundly affect the weather and climate because they obstruct the normal passage of meso-scale weather systems.’
More proof that global warming offers a better outcome than a cooler regime.
Shorter el gordo:
Global warming is better than global cooling, and the globe is cooling, therefore everything’s fine! There’s absolutely no contradiction here.
* * *
Meanwhile, here’s a useless fact about HARRY_READ_ME.txt and other files in the Climategate SwiftHack .zip file.
Global warming is better than global cooling, and the globe is cooling, therefore we can expect profound affects.
For example, the CSIRO says these ‘persistent and recurring blocking pairs in the Tasman Sea during the southern winter of 1982 caused abnormally low night time temperatures and severely reduced rainfall in south-eastern Australia. The drought, and its effects on agriculture and water supply were still being felt in mid-1983.’
There is too much concentration on temperature in this debate, when we should really be more focussed on the physical dynamic of the atmosphere.
>*There is too much concentration on temperature in this debate, when we should really be more focussed on the physical dynamic of the atmosphere.*
It’s a long shot, but if the high slips under the low we will have a stable pair in the Tasman.
Glad to see you back in good health, Janet.
Sorry to see you your still trying to confuse weather with climate.
But that what trolls do, they think confusion is their friend.
Piers Corbyn of the Great Global Warming Swindle infamy is predicting a wet summer for the UK. “Most of the theories surrounding climate change are complete nonsense. The earth has been cooling since 2002. It’s the opposite of what they say.”
Isn’t it strange that he won’t discuss his methods?
I suppose his seaweed has come back from the National Physical Laboratory after calibration.
Jackerman, the CSIRO say the phenomenon of ‘blocking’ is both climate and weather because it’s been around longer than homo sapiens.
Climate sensitivity is low, that’s why the Indians stood behind the Chinese at Copenhagen and scuttled the Europeans.
>Climate sensitivity is low
So the denialati argument that climate has always changed – strong climate sensitivity – you’ve dropped that one now, yes?
Yes, it must be, otherwise the climate might cool 1.5C over the next ten years in response to a relatively modest forcing such as another inactive solar cycle.
CSIRO say the phenomenon of ‘blocking’ is both climate and weather because it’s been around longer than homo sapiens.
The greenhouse effect has been around longer than the homo sapiens, and it is changing, care to to show how “blocking” is driving current climate change?
>*Climate sensitivity is low, that’s why the Indians stood behind the Chinese at Copenhagen and scuttled the Europeans.*
el gordo writes:
>*CSIRO say the phenomenon of ‘blocking’ is both climate and weather because it’s been around longer than homo sapiens.*
Please provide your source material, you’ve demonstrated many times that your interpretation of other’s work is not reliable.
I don’t know where you get the “global cooling” meme from, but it’s getting tedious. You “quote” the CSIRO and BoM frequently, but somehow forget to provide links to where these statements were made. Either provide the sources of these quotes, or I will assume you’ve not got the courage of your convictions, and furthermore assume you may well not have accurately conveyed the sense of those statements.
What exactly do you mean by “low” climate sensitivity? Is this something from your own research? If not, provide sources for this assertion.
El gordo is [asked for some evidence](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/open_thread_47.php#comment-2501266) then disappears [off to another topic](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/moncktons_testimony_to_congres.php#comment-2501298) to push his propaganda.
Apologies, laziness is no excuse, it was on page 24 of ‘CSIRO Research for Australian Weather & Climate’ and published 1986.
It has been argued that a doubling of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere would result in a 1.1°C increase in average temperature. So what is the big deal? Looking back over paleoclimate history, there is broad agreement of a climate sensitivity of around 3°C.
…and published 1986.
Of course it was.
>The greenhouse effect has been around longer than the homo sapiens, and it is changing, care to to show how “blocking” is driving current climate change?
>Please provide your source material, you’ve demonstrated many times that your interpretation of other’s work is not reliable.
el gordo’s response:
>*it was on page 24 of ‘CSIRO Research for Australian Weather & Climate’ and published 1986.*
What was “it” el gordo? Was “it” the answer to my question? Will you state what “it” is?
Perhaps this should go into the Monckton thread but anyways …
Abbott declares it was hotter in Palestine at the time of Jesus
It’s the quote at #344 on atmospheric blocking and I don’t have to answer your questions.
El gord writes:
>it’s the quote at #344
>*For example, the CSIRO says these ‘persistent and recurring blocking pairs in the Tasman Sea during the southern winter of 1982 caused abnormally low night time temperatures and severely reduced rainfall in south-eastern Australia. The drought, and its effects on agriculture and water supply were still being felt in mid-1983.’*
>*I don’t have to answer your questions*
You do if you want to show yourself to be anything but trolling propagandist. But you also need to change you approach if you want to show yourself as anything but that.
el gordo @357
Where do you get the 1.1°C (per doubling of CO2) figure from?
IIRC, it’s 1.1°C/2×CO2 without taking into account feedbacks.
Selective quoting again?
P Lewis (364) – that’s what I was wondering about. So what’s it to be el gordo? Gonna come clean about this magical 1.1°C figure? Or did you expect us to forget the feedbacks?
The AR4 best estimate temperature rise of 1.8 °C with a likely range of 1.1 to 2.9 °C, but with positive feedback it would be hell on earth. Thank gawd for negative feedback.
> The AR4 best estimate temperature rise of 1.8 °C with a likely range of 1.1 to 2.9 °C…
…for equilibrium climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2? I recall it being more like 2-4.5 Celsius, most likely around 3 C. Or are you talking about CO2 doubling ignoring feedbacks? You seem a bit … imprecise… regarding what you’re talking about at various points on this thread.
> …but with positive feedback it would be hell on earth. Thank gawd for negative feedback.
Disregarding the “cross my fingers and hope it’s the extreme value of the range”, this is really sloppy thinking.
We **know** there are *multiple* positive feedbacks, and we **know** there are *multiple* negative feedbacks. And they all have different strengths and operating regimes and variations in feedback strength. It’s just not as simple as saying we have “either one or the other”.
Oh, and we can certainly have positive feedback without “hell on earth”. I suspect you’re confusing total positive feedback with a feedback factor of less than unity (which merely amplifies any independently driven change) with (say) positive feedback with a feedback factor of greater than unity (which increases without limit until the feedback factor drops below unity again).
el Gordo: “The AR4 best estimate temperature rise of 1.8 °C with a likely range of 1.1 to 2.9 °C, but with positive feedback it would be hell on earth. Thank gawd for negative feedback.”
Unfortunately, there’s a new paper out placing sensitivity at a possible 4 to 4.5C (Lunt et al, 2010) with slow feedbacks, backed up by another recent paper (Pagani, 2010).
What were you saying about Hell on Earth? Enjoy reading: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Estimating-climate-sensitivity-from-3-million-years-ago.html
But just to emphasise the point which you may not be getting..
Palaeoclimate: Global warmth with little extra CO2. Birgit Schneider & Ralph Schneider (2010).
(3 – 4C once thought to be associated with CO2 at 500 – 600 ppmv therein put at 385 ppmv)
The rest are truly scary as well….
“Coupling of CO2 and Ice Sheet Stability Over Major Climate Transitions of the Last 20 Million Years. Tripati et al (December 2009)
Earth system sensitivity inferred from Pliocene modelling and data. Lunt et al (December 2009)
Here’s a chart:
High Earth-system climate sensitivity determined from Pliocene carbon dioxide concentrations. Pagani et al (December 2009)
Atmospheric CO2 concentrations during ancient greenhouse climates were similar to those predicted for A.D. 2100. Breecker et al (October 2009)
So, isn’t it time the so-called “sceptics” started taking this **** a bit more seriously?
>*The AR4 best estimate temperature rise of 1.8 °C with a likely range of 1.1 to 2.9 °C*
El gordo, please cite the page for this best estimate figure. I think you are telling porkies.
>*a doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations. It is likely to be in the range 2°C to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C. Values substantially higher than 4.5°C cannot be excluded*
el gordo, caught making stuff up again.
Stop using science everyone, you’re confusing Gordo.
Going through that list I can see why you’re concerned, but I don’t take it seriously. Even when, as janet says, it’s very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C increase over the coming century.
We are basing the future on a theoretical construct, which will never happen. On the other hand, we know already that temperatures can fall 1.5 C in a decade because it has happened in the past.
el Gordo: “We are basing the future on a theoretical construct, which will never happen.”
Everything we project about the future is a theoretical construct, warm or cold. The links I provided suggest that one must be particularly dense not to take the subject seriously, especially when we see CO2 levels matching both then and now.
You and your denialist mates are welcome to behave like lemmings, but kindly cut that rope from the rest of us and find your own planet to conduct your CO2 experiment on.
The PDO has been declining for the last 5 years and it went negative or cooling since 2007.
Environment Canada records show that Canada is annually 1.8 C degrees cooler and
various regions of Canada can be annually 1 to 2.4 C degrees colder during some phases
of negative PDO.
The monthly negative PDO levels are close to the early 1970’s levels – 1.55 in Feb 09 and the annual 1971 PDO was -1.29 when very cold winters happened. The west coast of Canada had its 10th coldest winter during 2008/2009 winter.
Picked this information up from Matt Vooro.
Concern trolls at it again, I see:
I once met Gwyn Prins, and nothing in this changes my opinion of him.
Gah! Begone, foul markdown:
I spotted that last night too. “Prins report” link fixed.
The reason Kyoto failed (not that it really “failed”) is well known.
And the link with the Lawson “think” tank says …
El gordo writes:
>*The AR4 best estimate temperature rise of 1.8 °C with a likely range of 1.1 to 2.9 °C, but with positive feedback it would be hell on earth. Thank gawd for negative feedback.*
Lets not just move on el gordo, where did you find this rubbish? Or did you simply make it up?
Do you beleive in setting record straight and thus enabling learning from mistakes?
Ah! You got there afore I!
Doing a Sunday browse looking for weather anomalies and I came across this.
Notify me of followup comments via E-Mail.