Arctic ice melt 'like adding 20 years of CO2 emissions'

[Indigogirl]

Climate change - global climate change - IS happening. There are so many variables and factors that to try to "reduce the noise" by pinning down only one issue or one contributing factor means one loses the broader picture and also the many contributing issues.

Many of the climate change sources comment that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions contribute to global climate change - but I have yet to find any reputable source which is prepared to put its corporate- or institutional head on a block and state categorically that GHGs are responsible for X-percentage of climate change.

Yes, change and climate change are part of this planet's cycle - the extent of the Karoo changes frequently as a result of drier cycles (when bossieveld expands) and wetter (mesic) cycles during which grassveld increases. This is normal cyclical stuff - which we can see and record over a few decades or centuries. The parts we have to deduce from palaeontological records though, become deductive science, and of course there are numerous skeptics and detractors - especially those who might have something to lose by "cleaning up their act" - including certain governments and large messy corporations, whose revenue is gained by churning out GHGs and other pollutants.

General scientific consensus however, remains that GHG emissions are contributing to and accelerating warming - with various key (human determined) milestones - 350ppm - dashed some time back and now 400ppm being the current circumstance - reached in some cities already, although the global average is not quite there. Intersect this issue with cyclical changes on a global scale and we have some rough times ahead (already started in a number of places).

So much for the GHGs, but what about Joe and Josephine Citizen? Have a look - if you are interested - also at the following websites:

City of Cape Town Climate Change and Sea Level Scenarios
350.org - easily understandable and interesting background
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - Nice to know that some governments ARE actually trying to do something...
Climate Adaptation Knowledge Exchange - banks stand to lose a great deal if everything goes pear-shaped, the World Bank makes its own efforts to facilitate climate change information...
UN-Habitat on Climate Change - loads of information here focusing on cities and climate change
UNEP on climate change - providing good info about mitigation, adaptation, the science and the tools...
and
The UNFCC - where you can find a large proportion of the supporting documentation and present day information.

In essence, sea level rise is already happening - with many small islands taking the major brunt of this, coastal erosion is happening too - with mangroves lost and other impacts. The Maldives are but one example, where a one metre sea level rise is projected to lead to the loss of the whole nation. Sea level has already risen almost a quarter of a metre in the last century, with this being seen to be accelerating more recently.

Anyone who did science (chemistry) at school will remember the end (tipping/turning) point where reactions suddenly happen REALLY rapidly during titration. Since this planet has never been through this particular set of circumstances before, nobody knows where that tipping point is, only that at some point or other, something WILL, or probably will, reach that turning point. The mitigation efforts made to date have been, and are, an attempt to slow down the GHG contribution to the process. Adaptation is the main option and imperative for us here in Africa, since by far the greatest contributors to GHG emissions are the "developed" nations to the north (although SA and Nigeria play their part too).

Pump up the heat, and ice melts oh SO much faster... It is not only melting ice but also thermal expansion which is contributing (and will contribute) to the situation. When the City of Cape Town is investigating risk assessment scenarios with models of 2.5m, 4.5m and 6.5m for sea level rise - one maybe needs to start thinking a little more about the issues, and informing oneself about the stark realities.

 

[w1z4rd]

Climate change - global climate change - IS happening. There are so many variables and factors that to try to "reduce the noise" by pinning down only one issue or one contributing factor means one loses the broader picture and also the many contributing issues.

Many of the climate change sources comment that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions contribute to global climate change - but I have yet to find any reputable source which is prepared to put its corporate- or institutional head on a block and state categorically that GHGs are responsible for X-percentage of climate change.

Yes, change and climate change are part of this planet's cycle - the extent of the Karoo changes frequently as a result of drier cycles (when bossieveld expands) and wetter (mesic) cycles during which grassveld increases. This is normal cyclical stuff - which we can see and record over a few decades or centuries. The parts we have to deduce from palaeontological records though, become deductive science, and of course there are numerous skeptics and detractors - especially those who might have something to lose by "cleaning up their act" - including certain governments and large messy corporations, whose revenue is gained by churning out GHGs and other pollutants.

General scientific consensus however, remains that GHG emissions are contributing to and accelerating warming - with various key (human determined) milestones - 350ppm - dashed some time back and now 400ppm being the current circumstance - reached in some cities already, although the global average is not quite there. Intersect this issue with cyclical changes on a global scale and we have some rough times ahead (already started in a number of places).

So much for the GHGs, but what about Joe and Josephine Citizen? Have a look - if you are interested - also at the following websites:

City of Cape Town Climate Change and Sea Level Scenarios
350.org - easily understandable and interesting background
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - Nice to know that some governments ARE actually trying to do something...
Climate Adaptation Knowledge Exchange - banks stand to lose a great deal if everything goes pear-shaped, the World Bank makes its own efforts to facilitate climate change information...
UN-Habitat on Climate Change - loads of information here focusing on cities and climate change
UNEP on climate change - providing good info about mitigation, adaptation, the science and the tools...
and
The UNFCC - where you can find a large proportion of the supporting documentation and present day information.

In essence, sea level rise is already happening - with many small islands taking the major brunt of this, coastal erosion is happening too - with mangroves lost and other impacts. The Maldives are but one example, where a one metre sea level rise is projected to lead to the loss of the whole nation. Sea level has already risen almost a quarter of a metre in the last century, with this being seen to be accelerating more recently.

Anyone who did science (chemistry) at school will remember the end (tipping/turning) point where reactions suddenly happen REALLY rapidly during titration. Since this planet has never been through this particular set of circumstances before, nobody knows where that tipping point is, only that at some point or other, something WILL, or probably will, reach that turning point. The mitigation efforts made to date have been, and are, an attempt to slow down the GHG contribution to the process. Adaptation is the main option and imperative for us here in Africa, since by far the greatest contributors to GHG emissions are the "developed" nations to the north (although SA and Nigeria play their part too).

Pump up the heat, and ice melts oh SO much faster... It is not only melting ice but also thermal expansion which is contributing (and will contribute) to the situation. When the City of Cape Town is investigating risk assessment scenarios with models of 2.5m, 4.5m and 6.5m for sea level rise - one maybe needs to start thinking a little more about the issues, and informing oneself about the stark realities.

Also things like the methane under the permafrost in the Arctic circle are going to play into all of this. With us increasing the temp of the world with our CO2 emissions, this will cause massive ice melts on the permafrost in the Arctic. Ive learnt that under that permafrost is a real lot of methane. Which is much more a green house gas than CO2 is.

I recon the FUD by big oil has bought too many small minds (not literally bought, I mean, their paid for FUD campaigns have convinced simple minds that AGW is not true). I dont think we can stop climate change now with all that FUD. I suppose the only silver lining I see to climate change is humanity is going to be forced to develop artificial environments to sustain themselves, which in turn might become the tech we use for space exploration. Our planet after all only have a life span of a couple of billion years left.

PS: Thank you for your post

 

[Unhappy438]

Great post Indigogirl

 

[Indigogirl]

Also things like the methane under the permafrost in the Arctic circle are going to play into all of this. With us increasing the temp of the world with our CO2 emissions, this will cause massive ice melts on the permafrost in the Arctic. Ive learnt that under that permafrost is a real lot of methane. Which is much more a green house gas than CO2 is.

I recon the FUD by big oil has bought too many small minds (not literally bought, I mean, their paid for FUD campaigns have convinced simple minds that AGW is not true). I dont think we can stop climate change now with all that FUD. I suppose the only silver lining I see to climate change is humanity is going to be forced to develop artificial environments to sustain themselves, which in turn might become the tech we use for space exploration. Our planet after all only have a life span of a couple of billion years left.

PS: Thank you for your post

I stopped where I did simply because I felt I had been on the soap box for too long... There was a fascinating but disturbing article in Nature last month on the topic, and one of the co-authors, one Pieter Tans, is quoted in a press release as saying:

“Globally, these carbon dioxide ‘sinks’ have roughly kept pace with emissions from human activities, continuing to draw about half of the emitted CO2 back out of the atmosphere. However, we do not expect this to continue indefinitely.”

Tipping point here we come?

 

[w1z4rd]

Looks like there can be a lot of tipping points that will accelerate the process. This is what I was thinking of: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=methane-a-menace-surfaces

[video=youtube;vSLHvZnbYwc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSLHvZnbYwc[/video]

 

[w1z4rd]

[video=youtube;WKyRHDFKEXQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKyRHDFKEXQ&feature=related[/video]


I was also wondering... with the increase in CO2 will we see an increase in phytoplankton or algae?

 

[Indigogirl]

Thanks for those two clips - fascinating and quite incredible to see! Phew - and disturbing.

The Arctic circle may well be the "crux" of how fast, how far, how extreme global climate change occurs. The methane issue (20x worse GHG than CO2) is of great consequence. Here is the summary from a conference held last year by the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme that might interest you? And, here is a press release from Lund University in Germany regarding some of the findings contributing to that conference.

In response to your wondering about plant-life in the melted perma-frost areas, a quote from the Lund University press release:

“But it is also possible that the vegetation which will be able to grow when the ground thaws will absorb the carbon dioxide. We still know very little about this. With the knowledge we have today we cannot say for sure whether the thawing tundra will absorb or produce more greenhouse gases in the future”.

Of course the methane remains a major problem!

And the next paragraph of the same press release:

"Effects of this type, so-called feedback effects, are of major significance for how extensive global warming will be in the future. Margareta Johansson and her colleagues present nine different feedback effects in their report. One of the most important right now is the reduction of the Arctic’s albedo. The decrease in the snow- and ice-covered surfaces means that less solar radiation is reflected back out into the atmosphere. It is absorbed instead, with temperatures rising as a result. Thus the Arctic has entered a stage where it is itself reinforcing climate change."

This is the part where various issues surrounding ocean currents - controlled (at least in part) by seasonal ice melt and freezing - start playing major havoc with climate at the global level too...

We live in interesting times...

 

[RiaX]

Fair enough. If I understand correctly, around 2013 is when the next maximum will be. The next solar mimimum should then be 5-8 years later. Point being, 2016 will be a period when solar activity is busy declining again.

Cosmic rays ionize the atmosphere all the time. This does not imply the sky should turn green. It's not my theory, check it out for yourself.

Doesnt matter if its not your theory, its plain down wrong. It violates chemistry in every aspect. Atoms resonate and they glow to get rid of that energy to go back to their stable energy states. That energy is given of as light, in the case of nitrogen its green

 

[Techne]

Doesnt matter if its not your theory, its plain down wrong. It violates chemistry in every aspect. Atoms resonate and they glow to get rid of that energy to go back to their stable energy states. That energy is given of as light, in the case of nitrogen its green

I don't know why you think this somehow makes the theory wrong or "violates chemistry in every way". In fact, the phenomena known as "Airglow" is explained, in part, by cosmic rays.

 

[RiaX]

yes so if cosmic rays are ionizing the atmosphere causing global warming then the atmosphere will glow at night

 

[Techne]

yes so if cosmic rays are ionizing the atmosphere causing global warming then the atmosphere will glow at night

The theory does say that cosmic rays cause global warming. Quite the opposite. Read up what was said earlier.

 

[RiaX]

The theory does say that cosmic rays cause global warming. Quite the opposite. Read up what was said earlier.

im aware of that, but im asking if they penetrate through the magnetic field why dont we get an aurora everywhere like those seen at the poles ? You cant segregate science when its convienient (? lol i cant spell to save my life haha, anyways), if these high energy rays are reaching the atmosphere the atoms in the atmosphere will resonate with fluorescent light? cosmic rays energise the atoms and the atoms return to the stable ground state via giving of light. When comic rays do this to the atmosphere it looks like so:

Those are pictures of the aurora borealis, its primarily green because the atmosphere is maintainly nitrogen.

The earth's magnetic shield looks like so:

This is why the auroras onloy appear by the poles, there have been periods of auroras reaching right down to washington but the theory speculates a distant supernova provided the energy source for this. Though it occurs only where the field is its weakest for the field is overwhelmed. The solar output is not sufficient to overwhelm earth's field. So claiming that cosmic rays are penetrating the atmosphere in a high enough concentration to alter weather systems on earth it has to produce an aurora. Yes cosmic rays do penetrate by they are at an insignificant amount.

Remember what you are claiming is that cosmic rays affect weather systems, by that notion you must explain and show the following:

1) Explain why there are no auroras outside the polar regions
2) Show solar output versus time for the last 50 years
3) Show weakening of the earth's magnetic field vs time for the last 50 years

and also note that its a theory not fact. What is fact is atoms glowing when exposed to high energy rays like this.

 

[Indigogirl]

This is why the auroras onloy appear by the poles, there have been periods of auroras reaching right down to washington but the theory speculates a distant supernova provided the energy source for this. Though it occurs only where the field is its weakest for the field is overwhelmed. The solar output is not sufficient to overwhelm earth's field. So claiming that cosmic rays are penetrating the atmosphere in a high enough concentration to alter weather systems on earth it has to produce an aurora. Yes cosmic rays do penetrate by they are at an insignificant amount.

Remember what you are claiming is that cosmic rays affect weather systems, by that notion you must explain and show the following:

1) Explain why there are no auroras outside the polar regions
2) Show solar output versus time for the last 50 years
3) Show weakening of the earth's magnetic field vs time for the last 50 years

and also note that its a theory not fact. What is fact is atoms glowing when exposed to high energy rays like this.

You might be interested in taking a long look through this website - I subscribe (and have done for the past two years) and receive notifications of solar activity.

Here is an example of the type of notification received:

"Space Weather Message Code: ALTK06
Serial Number: 292
Issue Time: 2012 Sep 05 0240 UTC

ALERT: Geomagnetic K-index of 6
Threshold Reached: 2012 Sep 05 0240 UTC
Synoptic Period: 0000-0300 UTC

Active Warning: Yes
NOAA Scale: G2 - Moderate

NOAA Space Weather Scale descriptions can be found at
www.swpc.noaa.gov/NOAAscales

Potential Impacts: Area of impact primarily poleward of 55 degrees Geomagnetic Latitude.
Induced Currents - Power grid fluctuations can occur. High-latitude power systems may experience voltage alarms.
Spacecraft - Satellite orientation irregularities may occur; increased drag on low Earth-orbit satellites is possible.
Radio - HF (high frequency) radio propagation can fade at higher latitudes.
Aurora - Aurora may be seen as low as New York to Wisconsin to Washington state."

 

[Indigogirl]

Several times in the past year solar activity has pushed further...

An example from 24 April 2012...

"Space Weather Message Code: WARK07
Serial Number: 37
Issue Time: 2012 Apr 24 0204 UTC

WARNING: Geomagnetic K-index of 7 or greater expected
Valid From: 2012 Apr 24 0205 UTC
Valid To: 2012 Apr 24 0600 UTC
Warning Condition: Onset
NOAA Scale: G3 or greater - Strong to Extreme

NOAA Space Weather Scale descriptions can be found at
www.swpc.noaa.gov/NOAAscales

Potential Impacts: Area of impact primarily poleward of 50 degrees Geomagnetic Latitude.
Induced Currents - Power system voltage irregularities possible, false alarms may be triggered on some protection devices.
Spacecraft - Systems may experience surface charging; increased drag on low Earth-orbit satellites and orientation problems may occur.
Navigation - Intermittent satellite navigation (GPS) problems, including loss-of-lock and increased range error may occur.
Radio - HF (high frequency) radio may be intermittent.
Aurora - Aurora may be seen as low as Pennsylvania to Iowa to Oregon."

 

[Indigogirl]

and... regarding the earth's magnetic field:

Take a look at
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/29dec_magneticfield/
and
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012-poleReversal.html

 

[RiaX]

interesting so lets run with this theory for a second then.

If cosmic rays are entering the earth and providing energy then that energy is being released as a longer wavelength photon how is this supposidly cooling the earth?

 

[Techne]

interesting so lets run with this theory for a second then.

If cosmic rays are entering the earth and providing energy then that energy is being released as a longer wavelength photon how is this supposidly cooling the earth?

That would be a pretty daft theory. But that is not the theory... luckily.

Remember what you are claiming is that cosmic rays affect weather systems, by that notion you must explain and show the following:

1) Explain why there are no auroras outside the polar regions
2) Show solar output versus time for the last 50 years
3) Show weakening of the earth's magnetic field vs time for the last 50 years

and also note that its a theory not fact. What is fact is atoms glowing when exposed to high energy rays like this.

Well, I am not claiming it, the guys doing the research are claiming it. I am following the research.

I don't think the theory expects world-wide auroras. Ionization due to cosmic arrays have been observed for many years now and they don't see world-wide auroras as seen at the poles. It is not expected either. The airglow alluded to earlier is however, explained in part by cosmic rays.

Solar output has been observed for the 20th century and was on the increase throughout.

The earth's magnetic field has also been observed for quite a while. Whether it is weakening or strengthening appears to be large irrelevant to the solar connection and cosmic rays. Whether it too plays a role in global climate should be interesting though.

Anyway, if you are interested in understanding the actual theory, here are a few links:
http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/research/CLOUD-en.html
http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud/Physics/modulation.html
http://astro.uchicago.edu/cosmus/projects/auger/
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7361/full/nature10343.html
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/solar/cosmic.html
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073/

Henrik Svensmark on Global Warming (Part 1)
Henrik Svensmark on Global Warming (Part 2)
Henrik Svensmark on Global Warming (Part 3)
Henrik Svensmark on Global Warming (part 4)
Henrik Svensmark on Global Warming (part 5)

 

[RiaX]

I smell research grant hunting >.<

 

[killadoob]

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/16dec_giantbreach/

At the moment our shield is down. We are taking on more cosmic rays and nobody has any idea how long there has been a hole. Makes sense though, more cosmic rays higher earth temp, more quakes, volcanic activity. There have been some big solar flares since 2001, oddly that coincides with the warming period or the highest recorded temps.

Theory of course because we do not understand all that much even though it appears we have everything figured out.

Another good read

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110824/full/news.2011.504.html

 

[Techne]

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/16dec_giantbreach/

At the moment our shield is down. We are taking on more cosmic rays and nobody has any idea how long there has been a hole. Makes sense though, more cosmic rays higher earth temp, more quakes, volcanic activity. There have been some big solar flares since 2001, oddly that coincides with the warming period or the highest recorded temps.

Theory of course because we do not understand all that much even though it appears we have everything figured out.

Another good read

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110824/full/news.2011.504.html

"more cosmic rays higher earth temp"... huh? Evidence suggest it is the opposite...