jennifermarohasy.com/blog - The Politics and Environment Blog

Main menu:

 

September 2008
M T W T F S S
« Aug   Oct »
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930  

Tags

Archives

Authors

Site search

Miniposts 0.6.5

Andrew Bolt on Robyn Williams on Nuance
ABC [Australia's] Science Show host Robyn Williams says those who contradict him when he makes absurdly alarmist - and false - claims about global warming just don’t understand “nuance”. Read more here. (0)

China Prepares for More Cold
A cold weather emergency response plan to tackle disasters after record cold and snow brought down power lines and paralyzed much of the usually mild south earlier this year… was activated in China on Wednesday.  Read more here. (0)

Eating Reindeer
Around 70 per cent of Swedish reindeer slaughtered are calves, which means they die without seeing snow, claims the animal welfare group Viva!.  Read more here. (2)

A Consensus Means ...
A consensus means that everyone agrees to say collectively what no one believes individually. Abba Eban via Joe D’Aleo (0)

Donate to the Australian Environment Foundation
Make a Donation, Save the Environment, Stop the Emissions Trading Scheme. Read more here. (0)

Advertisement

Links

Disclaimer: The inclusion of a blog or website in this list should not be taken as an endorsement of its contents by me.

The Earth’s Climate is Tracking into Uncharted Territory: A Note from Andrew Glikson

Studies of Pleistocene glacial-interglacial cycles based on sediments and ice cores back to 640 000 years (640 kyr) document abrupt initiation of global warming and cooling events over short time scales of decades to a few years, implying extreme instability of the Earth’s atmosphere, with implications for 21st century climate change projections.

Current rise rates of atmospheric radiative forcing toward ~450 ppm CO2 are tracking toward an ice-free Earth.

Time tables of carbon emission reduction targets which take little account of the rates of ice sheet melt/water feedbacks and carbon cycle feedbacks, including release of methane hydrates from sea bottom sediments and from bogs, are unlikely to be able to prevent runaway global warming on a scale similar to the last glacial terminations.

Extreme climate change events in the recent history of Earth include:

A. Intra-glacial warming cycles, termed Dansgaard-Oeschger (D-O cycles), between 80 kyr and 20 kyr, including 21 ~1470 years-long cycles, each initiated over decades-scale time frames (Figure 1). The D-O cycles are attributed to interactions between weak solar radiation maxima and ocean current systems [1, 2].

WARNING FIGURE 1 blog.jpg
Figure 1. An example of a Dansgaard-Oeschger abrupt climate event. 1 of 21 cycles during the alst ice age, 80 000 – 20 000 years-ago. Greenland ice core. From Rahmstorf, 2004.

B. Evidence for the last glacial termination based on deuterium and oxygen isotopes from the Greenland NGRIP ice core indicates sharp 3-years-long warming by 2 to 4oC at 14.7 kyr, sharp 1 year-long cooling at 12.9 kyr, and sharp 3 years-long warming at 11.7 kyr (Figure 2) [3].

WARNING FIGURE 2 blog.jpg
Figure 2. deuterium-drived determinations of temperatures from Greenland NGRIP ice core for the period 14 740 – 11 660 years-ago, displaying abrupt warming and cooling changes between the ‘oldest dryas’ cold period, Allerod and Bolling warm periods, youngest dryas cold period and the Holocene. Note transitions occur over periods of 1 – 3 years. From Steffensen et al., 2008.

C. Evidence for the last glacial termination from the Greenland GISP-2 ice core, based on Nitrogen and Argon isotopes, indicates abrupt warming by 10±4oC at 12.8 kyr over a period of ~100 years and abrupt warming by 4±1.5 oC at 11.27 kyr over period of 70 years [4]. Sea level rose by 40 metres following the termination up to about 8500 years-ago [5].

Mean global temperature changes are estimated as about half the polar temperatures.

The origin of the D-O cycles is interpreted in terms of interaction between weak insolation signals and the thermohaline current system [2]. Glacial terminations at intervals of about 100 kyr, 41 kyr and 23 kyr (Milankovich cycles) were triggered by axial tilt toward the poles, elevating mid-June insolation by up to <60 Watt/m2 at latitude 65N [6]. The glacial terminations involved mean global solar radiation anomalies of 4 to 5 Watt/m2, triggering ice melt feedback loops and greenhouse gas release loops [6].

The intertwined synergy of these processes resulted in:

(1) Ice sheet and glacier melt, reduced short-wave reflection (albedo) by sea ice and ice sheets, exposure of water surfaces absorbing infrared, further melting of ice by warming water, migration of boreal forest northward causing decrease in albedo.

(2) Carbon gases (CO2, CH4) released from warming oceans, drying biosphere and fires; methane released from sea-bottom methane hydrates (clathrates: water-CH4 molecules) in sea bottom sediments and from drying bogs. Rapid release of methane hydrates is invoked as a mechanism for a runaway greenhouse effect and consequent mass extinctions through the history of Earth, specifically the Permian-Triassic (251 Ma) mass extinction and the Paleocene-Eocene (55 Ma) extinction (~ +6oC global warming) [7]

The combined radiative synergy of ice melt-feedback and greenhouse gases-feedback triggering rapid polar meltdown affected pole-ward migration of the inter-tropical convergence zone (ITCZ), subtropical arid zone and mid-latitude zones, affecting the ocean thermohaline circulation. The Greenland ice-melt flow result in abortion of the Gulf Stream which warms Europe and northeast America. Warming of the southern oceans weakens the Humboldt current west of South America and the trade winds, indirectly enhancing El-Nino events which result in droughts in the southwestern Pacific, India and Africa [8].

The rise in mean global temperature by several degrees Celsius over time scales of a few years to a century testifies to a high susceptibility of the atmosphere to minor to moderate energy forcings. According to Hansen et al. 2007 [6] the solar energy pulse from orbital variations which triggered the glacial terminations is up to 0.25 Watt/m2. Mean global atmospheric energy rise associated with the glacial terminations of +4 to +5 Watt/m2 (~ +5 to +7oC) are consistent with the upper range of the IPCC projections for the 21st century, +1.1 to +6.4oC.

Comparisons between abrupt glacial-interglacial terminations and 21st century projections are complicated by the lower mean global temperatures at which the glacial terminations commenced and the large volumes of ice compared to the Holocene, including the Laurentian and Fennoscandian ice sheets. The fast rise of the greenhouse gas forcing component since the mid-1800s, at rates since 1960 reaching 387 ppm in 2007 at rates of >1.6 ppm/year, are two order of magnitude higher than CO2 rise rates of 0.012 ppm/year at the last termination. Where 1 ppm CO2 induces an atmospheric energy rise of ~0.02 Watt/m2, this equates to an increase of 1.7 Watt/m2 in atmospheric radiative energy since 1750, not counting carbon cycle and ice melt feedbacks.

The non-linear nature of atmospheric CO2 and CH4 rise, from 1.3%/year in 1990-1999 to 3.3%/year in 2000-2006 [9], combined with further ice melt and albedo decline and carbon cycle feedback effects, including release of CH4 hydrates, drying/burning biosphere, reduced CO2 sequestration by the oceans, threatens to move the Earth’s atmosphere into glacial termination-like conditions. Rapid ice melt rates in Greenland, the Arctic Sea and west Antarctica, the latter continuing through the southern winter, are documented from satellite and on the ground. The polar ice sheets, initiated about 34 million years ago, when CO2 levels declined below 450 ppm, are in danger.

The Earth’s climate is tracking into uncharted territory.

Andrew Glikson
Canberra, Australia

Andrew Glikson undertakes earth and paleo-climate research at the Research School of Earth Science, Australian National University.

[1] Broecker, 2000. Earth-Science Reviews 51, 137–154;
[2] Braun et al., 2005. Nature, 438)
[3] Steffensen et al., 2008. Science Express, 19 June, 2008 ;
[4] Kobashi et al., 2008. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett, 268, 397 ;
[5] Siddall et al., 2003. Nature 423, 853.
[6] Hansen et al., 2007. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London 365A, 1925. Hansen et al., 2008. Am. J. Sci (in press;
[7] Zachos et al., 2008. Nature 451 (7176): 279; Ryski, 2003. Geology; 31, 741;
[8] Trenberth et al., 2002). J. Geophys. Re. 107, 4065..
[9] International Carbon Project 2006. Recent Carbon Trends and the Global Carbon
http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/global/ppt/774,1,

————————-
This blog is a gathering place for people with a common interest in politics and the environment. I strive for tolerance and respect. I don’t always agree with what I publish, but I believe in giving people an opportunity to be heard. I take no responsibility for comments and hyperlinks that follow each blog post. Some content may be considered offensive by some people.

Advertisement

169 Responses to “The Earth’s Climate is Tracking into Uncharted Territory: A Note from Andrew Glikson”

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1117 » Show All

  1. Comment from: James Haughton


    Stunned silence from the blogosphere?

  2. Comment from: Mark


    Well that’s that then! Time to party like it’s 1999!

  3. Comment from: Alan Siddons


    “Radiative forcing,” what a joke. Once you realize that radiating heat back to a source can’t raise the temperature of the source (1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics), the “settled science” of radiative forcing falls apart. Carbon dioxide levels are a response to climate change, not a stimulus. The earth might warm or the earth might cool, but CO2 has nothing to do with it.

  4. Comment from: James Haughton


    Alan, what happens when you stand between two mirrors? Does the reflection stop occurring after the light has bounced once off each mirror? Or do you see an infinite extent of gradually shrinking and dimming images?

    Replace light photons with IR photons, one mirror with the earth’s surface and one with the atmosphere, and you have a basic understanding of back-radiation.

    It doesn’t break the laws of thermodynamics, which apply to closed systems. The earth is an energetically open system with heat pouring in constantly from the sun.

  5. Comment from: SJT


    ““Radiative forcing,” what a joke. Once you realize that radiating heat back to a source can’t raise the temperature of the source (1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics), the “settled science” of radiative forcing falls apart. Carbon dioxide levels are a response to climate change, not a stimulus. The earth might warm or the earth might cool, but CO2 has nothing to do with it.”

    You seem to have no idea of what is being claimed, because you have no idea how it works. The progress of science has identified how this at first self contradictory process happens.

    a) At the macro level, the laws of thermodynamics are indeed observed, the energy is transferred from hot to cold.
    b) At the quantum level, the physical particles involved in transferring that energy do so, but at a statistical level. That is, over time, the radiation is going from the hotter body to the colder one, but there will be a number of particles emitted back from the cold body to the hot one. This effectively slows down the transer of radiation. For a system like the earth that has a constant stream of radiation pouring in, the nett effect is an increase in temperature.

    So no laws of thermodynamics are broken, over time.

  6. Comment from: Gummo Trotsky


    Is this one of those Keynesian ‘When the facts change I change my mind…’ moments? Guess I’ll have to wait and see.

    “Once you realize that radiating heat back to a source can’t raise the temperature of the source…”

    That’s a bit like saying that depositing $50 into a bank account from which you’ve just withdrawn $100 won’t increase your bank balance any, because the Laws of Conservation of Money say so.

    If there were such things as Laws of Conservation of Money and they worked the way Alan thinks the laws of thermodynamics do, I’d definitely go into the banking business.

  7. Comment from: Joel


    So essentially, Andrew is saying based on previous warming cycles and the associated positive feedbacks, we should be tracking the upper range of the IPCC projections for the 21st century, so it should be 6.4C warmer by 2100. Currently, that would require a warming of 0.3 to 0.4 C/decade before the other positive feedbacks kick in.

    So, how are we going so far?

  8. Comment from: NT


    Well, good on Jennifer for posting from the ‘other side’.
    Dr Glikson is a very well respected geologist.

    It’s interesting to hear reports of increasing methane levels in Siberia. If that methane is released it will contribute greatly to any enhanced greenhouse, and it’s not something we will be able to prevent.

  9. Comment from: Alan Siddons


    The greenhouse paradigm consists of one misconception built on top of another, and it’s as flimsy as a house of cards.
    1. Does the earth have a radiative imbalance, an indication that it’s holding heat in? No, the earth radiates to space the same magnitude of energy as it absorbs from the sun.
    2. Does a carbon dioxide (or methane) molecule trap heat? No, what infrared energy it does absorb it immediately radiates.
    3. Is outer space icy-cold, but the earth is protected by insulating gases? No, unlike a cold object, space cannot absorb heat. The vacuum of space is a near-perfect insulator that has no temperature.
    4. Can radiant energy originating from the earth’s surface, fractionally absorbed and fractionally (one-sixth) radiated back, raise the surface temperature? No, radiation from trace gases can only raise the surface’s temperature if they’re at a higher temperature — which by definition they cannot be, since they’re passive absorbers of surface energy. Heat transfer follows a gradient of greater to lesser temperature, not lesser to greater nor equal to equal.

    But people like James Haughton and SJT believe that looking into a mirror will progressively heat your face — via back-radiation or statistical quantum reversal, y’know. At bottom, all the modern hysteria about warming from a “greenhouse effect” owes to confused, distorted and incoherent ideas about physics.

    Gummo, refer to point 1.

  10. Comment from: Gordon Robertson


    With all due respect to Andrew Glikson and his studies, the IPCC said in TAR that future climate states could not be predicted. He is infering the opposite, that the past is known. He has dropped the adjective ‘theoretical’, and is making inferences that everything he claims in his article happened.

    He even quotes James Hansen, who was funded by the known activist Al Gore. Hansen made a prediction in 1988 that we were in for a spot of bother if we didn’t cut CO2 emissions immediately. Twenty years later, we are in no more bother than we were then, and he has confessed to an error in his prediction. If he can’t predict climate with any accuracy 10 years later, why are we listening to his impressions of climate terminations millions of years ago?

    To say the least, I think this article is way out there with Big Bang theory and I hope Jennifer stops this kind of experiment in fairness. I think she is being too sensitive to unworthy criticism.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1117 » Show All

Leave a Reply