CC3 -- Why I believe that a third option is needed for climate change

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

No it's not. A link was provided earlier to a paper outlining the 1470-yr Dansgaard-Oeschger spikes that involved warming of 8 degrees in 40 years.

Akrasia wrote: »

Local warming in the arctic of this magnitude, not global warming.

Although the effects of the Dansgaard–Oeschger events are largely constrained to ice cores taken from Greenland,[9] there is evidence to suggest that D-O events have been globally synchronous.[10] A spectral analysis of the American GISP2 isotope record[11] showed a peak of [18O:16O] abundance around 1500 years. This was proposed by Schulz (2002)[12] to be a regular periodicity of 1470 years. This finding was supported by Rahmstorf (2003);[13] if only the most recent 50,000 years from the GISP2 core are examined, the variation of the trigger is ±12% (±2% in the 5 most recent events, whose dates are probably most precise).

However the older parts of the GISP2 core do not show this regularity, nor do the same events in the GRIP core. This may be because the first 50 kyr of the GISP2 core are most accurately dated, by layer counting. The climate system response to the trigger is varying within 8% of the period. Oscillations within the Earth system can be expected to be far more irregular in period. Rahmstorf suggests that the highly regular pattern would point more to an orbital cycle. Such a source has not been identified. The closest orbital cycle, a Lunar cycle of 1,800 years, cannot be reconciled with this pattern.[13] The dating between the European GRIP ice core, and the American GISP2 ice core differs by about 5000 years at 50,000 years BP. It was noted by Ditlevsen et al. (2005)[14] that the spectral peak found in the GISP2 ice core was not present in the GRIP core, and thus depended critically on the accuracy of the dating. The dating issue was largely solved by the accurate dating of the NGRIP core.[15] Using this dating the recurrence of Dansgaard–Oeschger events is random consistent with a noise induced Poisson process.[16]

D-O cycles may set their own timescale. Maslin et al.. (2001) suggested that each ice sheet had its own conditions of stability, but that on melting, the influx of freshwater was enough to reconfigure ocean currents, causing melting elsewhere. More specifically, D-O cold events, and their associated influx of meltwater, reduce the strength of the North Atlantic Deep Water current (NADW), weakening the northern hemisphere circulation and therefore resulting in an increased transfer of heat polewards in the southern hemisphere. This warmer water results in melting of Antarctic ice, thereby reducing density stratification and the strength of the Antarctic Bottom Water current (AABW). This allows the NADW to return to its previous strength, driving Northern Hemisphere melting – and another D-O cold event.

The theory may also explain Heinrich events' apparent connection to the D-O cycle; when the accumulation of meltwater in the oceans reaches a threshold, it may have raised sea level enough to undercut the Laurentide ice sheet – causing a Heinrich event and resetting the cycle.
The little ice age around 400 to 200 years ago has been interpreted by some as the cold part of a D-O cycle.[5]

https://www.euractiv.com/section/climate-environment/news/thinning-of-the-arctic-unprecedented-for-at-least-1000-years-ipcc-report/

The Arctic has lost around 12.8% of its surface area every decade between 1979 and 2018,

oriel36 wrote: »

Hear the conclusion from a wider perspective.

The reason that the RA/Dec framework or the 'clockwork solar system' was adopted is that it appeared to make astronomical predictions look like experimental predictions -

"Rule III. The qualities of bodies which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever." Newton

How Newton made the fall of an apple (experiment) appear like planetary orbital motion (universal quality) was by using the RA/Dec framework in an eye assaulting statement -

"That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean distances from the sun.... for the periodic times are the same, and the dimensions of the orbits are the same, whether the sun revolves about the earth, or the earth about the sun." Newton


The axiom for the Earth's orbital motion is based on the observation that the Sun travels through the constellations, the axiom for daily rotation is that the Sun appears to travel around the Earth. The 17th century icon goes through astronomy like a brexiteer goes through European politics by making things up as he goes along.

As conditions in a common greenhouse (experiment) are meant to scale up to the Earth's atmosphere (universal quality) , it satisfies experimental theorists and their Rule III/ Scientific method.

People can make up their own minds in this more expansive perspective.

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Sorry, what point are you trying to make with all of these planetary essays?

oriel36 wrote: »

Ah, it was only a matter of time before 'what's your point ?' showed up as a reaction.

Wider society is a victim of the 'scientific method' which began its awful existence as Rule III among the gentlemen rogues of 17th century Royal Society England -

"Rule III. The qualities of bodies which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever." Newton

It gives experimental theorists the indulgence of making up whatever is needed to suit a conclusion so that conditions in a common greenhouse (experiment) are equivalent to the Earth's atmosphere (universal quality).

In short and to conclude, the people less likely to appreciate planetary climate are academics and their frantic followers while a more reasonable person can make the distinction between the motions of the planet and Earth sciences on one side from the problematic motions linked to timekeeping and clockwork solar system modeling on the other. I notice nobody commented on the cause and effect for the seasons promoted by RA/Dec modelers but it is a Frankenstein creation as is everything else they do where the motions of the Earth link to Earth sciences are required -

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap170319.html

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

If it's not clear what your point is then maybe have a look at your posting style, which is a long line of Newton-esqe musings, with any actual message hidden within it. I'm now even more at a loss as to what your point is. Timekeeping and planetary motion, Frankenstein creations?

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

WT actual F?

alias no.9 wrote: »

It reads as if the poster is questioning the assumptions and simplifications underpinning climate change models, or that's the most sense I can make of it.

Akrasia wrote: »

It’s an average over the period, the ‘flat trend’ is noise, the signal is the declining ice

All of you ‘skeptics’ love looking at the flat parts of graphs right past the obvious overall trend

kittyn wrote: »

Having read through this thread with interest lately I am just wondering what your professional credentials are seeing as you are being so dismissive of some many regular posters here? Now you are not the only poster on this thread dismissing other regular posters points......

Why is it that when anyone gets a medical diagnosis we are always told to feel free to get a second opinion? In my opinion I feel that there are two sides to this debate and neither side should be dismissed but both sides explored and dissected without insult on either side.

Akrasia wrote: »

If you want to use the medical diagnosis analogy, the experts who agree with the IPCC outnumber those who disagree by (much) more than 10 to 1

Your example is like me going to a doctor and being diagnosed with cancer, then getting a 2nd opinion, being told it’s cancer, then getting 7 more opinions all agreeing that it’s cancer before the 10th person says it’s probably not cancer but he doesn’t know what it is

I disagree with Gaoth Laidir because he consistently down plays all of the data that says climate is changing while pointing at anything that can muddy the argument (like periods in a series that show flat growth even if most of the data shows steady or accelerating growth

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

So I've to wait until it starts going down again before I'm allowed to comment? In the meantime I just stay quiet? Don't make me laugh :rolleyes: If you want to talk about cherrypicking, what about the panic about the downward trend in the previous two decades? Ok to focus on that part of the graph but not on any others...

For your information I've never said it won't go down again. All I've highlighted is the lack of acknowledgement of the sizeable levelling off )for now) and also the ridiculously bad forecasts based purely on alarmism up to this point.

The fast decline of Arctic sea ice is a leading indicator of ongoing global climate change and is receiving substantial public and scientific attention. Projections suggest that Arctic summer sea ice may virtually disappear within the course of the next 50 or even 30 yr with rapid Arctic warming. However, limited observational records and lack of annual-resolution marine sea-ice proxies hamper the assessment of long-term changes in sea ice, leading to large uncertainties in predictions of its future evolution under global warming. Here, we use long-lived encrusting coralline algae that strongly depend on light availability as a new in situ proxy to reconstruct past variability in the duration of seasonal sea-ice cover. Our data represent the northernmost annual-resolution marine sea-ice reconstruction to date, extending to the early 19th century off Svalbard. Algal records show that the decreasing trend in sea-ice cover in the high Arctic had already started at the beginning of the 20th century, earlier than previously reported from sea-ice reconstructions based on terrestrial archives. Our data further suggest that, although sea-ice extent varies on multidecadal time scales, the lowest sea-ice values within the past 200 yr occurred at the end of the 20th century.

---

During the past four decades, the time period for which satellite measurements are available, summer sea-ice cover in the Arctic Ocean has declined by >10% per decade (Walsh et al., 2017). Climate models have not only failed to predict the speed and extent of the observed Arctic sea-ice decline because uncertainties in sea-ice modeling are large (Rampal et al., 2011), they also significantly underestimate recent high-latitude surface warming (Boé et al., 2009) (Fig. 1). Although the loss of Arctic sea ice is visible for all months and in all regions, it varies substantially between regions and time of year (Cavalieri and Parkinson, 2012). Thus, it is important to understand the various forcings that contribute to the loss of Arctic sea ice in different regions.

Algal proxy records compared to sea-ice observations and proxy reconstructions. (A,B) Observational sea-ice concentration data averaged for region including study site (Mosselbukta, Svalbard) derived from the Hadley Centre Global Sea Ice and Sea Surface Temperature (HadISST) data set (Rayner et al., 2003) (A) and U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) (B) data set (https://nsidc.org) (shown as May–October averages; see Methods in text). Sea-ice concentration is shown as percent area covered by sea ice. Before C.E. 1950, the number of direct sea-ice observations is low, and HadISST values are based largely on climatology rather than real observations. (C) Historical index of late summer (August) Arctic sea-ice extent (Kinnard et al., 2011). (D) Greenland Sea sea-ice edge position anomalies from historical ice observations (Divine and Dick, 2006). Black asterisk marks 1941–1945 time period, where data coverage is limited due to observation gaps during the Second World War. (E) Sea-ice proxy reconstructions from the Svalbard algal multiproxy record (this study), shown as single-specimen (red, based on specimen Sv1; C.E. 1813–2015 [time span covered by the proxy]) and multi-specimen records (blue, averaged from three samples, Sv1, Sv28, and Sv90; 1895–2015). ETCW—early 20th-century warming in the Arctic. Black thick arrow depicts declining trend in Svalbard sea ice since the early 20th century. (F) Newfoundland sea-ice extent (Hill and Jones, 1990). (G) Labrador and Canadian Arctic algal sea-ice proxy record (Halfar et al., 2013). Bold lines represent 5 yr moving averages, and thin black lines represent annual data. Algal proxy records are plotted inversely. Thin vertical black arrows in B mark years where the algal proxy suggests summers with above-average sea ice in the 21st century, concurrent with NSIDC satellite sea-ice observations (summers of 2003, 2008–2010). Algal proxy data are normalized to unit variance by subtracting the mean and dividing by the standard deviation (STD).

Akrasia wrote: »

I quoted directly from the IPCC and you said it was wrong

The Arctic has lost around 12.8% of its surface area every decade between 1979 and 2018

And Wadhams always references natural variability before making his I’ll judged predictions.