Synchronization of North Atlantic, North Pacific preceded abrupt warming, end of ice age

Jul 24, 2014
This image depicts the Hubbard Glacier ice front, with floating ice 'growlers' in August 2004. Credit: Oregon State University

Scientists have long been concerned that global warming may push Earth's climate system across a "tipping point," where rapid melting of ice and further warming may become irreversible—a hotly debated scenario with an unclear picture of what this point of no return may look like.

A newly published study by researchers at Oregon State University probed the geologic past to understand mechanisms of . The study pinpoints the emergence of synchronized climate variability in the North Pacific Ocean and the North Atlantic Ocean a few hundred years before the rapid warming that took place at the end of the last ice age about 15,000 years ago.

The study suggests that the combined warming of the two oceans may have provided the tipping point for abrupt warming and rapid melting of the northern ice sheets.

Results of the study, which was funded by the National Science Foundation, appear this week in Science.

This new discovery by OSU researchers resulted from an exhaustive 10-year examination of marine sediment cores recovered off southeast Alaska where geologic records of climate change provide an unusually detailed history of changing temperatures on a scale of decades to centuries over many thousands of years.

"Synchronization of two major ocean systems can amplify the transport of heat toward the polar regions and cause larger fluctuations in northern hemisphere climate," said Summer Praetorius, a doctoral student in marine geology at Oregon State and lead author on the Science paper. "This is consistent with theoretical predictions of what happens when Earth's climate reaches a tipping point."

"That doesn't necessarily mean that the same thing will happen in the future," she pointed out, "but we cannot rule out that possibility."

The study found that synchronization of the two regional systems began as climate was gradually warming. After synchronization, the researchers detected wild variability that amplified the changes and accelerated into an abrupt warming event of several degrees within a few decades.

"As the systems become synchronized, they organized and reinforced each other, eventually running away like screeching feedback from a microphone," said Alan Mix, a professor in OSU's College of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences and co-author on the paper. "Suddenly you had the combined effects of two major oceans forcing the climate instead of one at a time."

"The example that we uncovered is a cause for concern because many people assume that climate change will be gradual and predictable," Mix added. "But the study shows that there can be vast climate swings over a period of decades to centuries. If such a thing happened in the future, it could challenges society's ability to cope."

What made this study unusual is that the researchers had such a detailed look at the geologic record. While modern climate observations can be made every day, the length of instrumental records is relatively short – typically less than a century. In contrast, paleoclimatic records extend far into the past and give good context for modern changes, the researchers say. However, the resolution of most paleo records is low, limited to looking at changes that occur over thousands of years.

In this study, the researchers examined sediment cores taken from the Gulf of Alaska in 2004 during an expedition led by Mix. The mountains in the region are eroding so fast that sedimentation rates are "phenomenal," he said. "Essentially, this rapid sedimentation provides a 'climate tape recorder' at extremely high fidelity."

Praetorius then led an effort to look at past temperatures by slicing the sediment into decade-long chunks spanning more than 8,000 years – a laborious process that took years to complete. She measured ratios of oxygen isotopes trapped in fossil shells of marine plankton called foraminifera. The isotopes record the temperature and salinity of the water where the plankton lived.

When the foraminifera died, their shells sank to the sea floor and were preserved in the sediments that eventually were recovered by Mix's coring team.

The researchers then compared their findings with data from the North Greenland Ice Core Project to see if the two distinct high-latitude systems were in any way related.

Most of the time, the two regions vary independently, but about 15,500 years ago, temperature changes started to line up and then both regions warmed abruptly by about five degrees (C) within just a few decades. Praetorius noted that much warmer ocean waters likely would have a profound effect on northern-hemisphere climates by melting sea ice, warming the atmosphere and destabilizing ice sheets over Canada and Europe.

A tipping point for "may be crossed in an instant," Mix noted, "but the actual response of the Earth's system may play out over centuries or even thousands of years during a period of dynamic adjustment."

"Understanding those dynamics requires that we look at examples from the past," Mix said. "If we really do cross such a boundary in the future, we should probably take a long-term perspective and realize that change will become the new normal. It may be a wild ride."

Added Praetorius: "Our study does suggest that the synchronization of the two major ocean systems is a potential early warning system to begin looking for the tipping point."

Explore further: Researcher studies past climate change to understand future impact

More information: www.sciencemag.org/lookup/doi/… 1126/science.1252000

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Melting during cooling period

Apr 16, 2014

(Phys.org) —A University of Maine research team says stratification of the North Atlantic Ocean contributed to summer warming and glacial melting in Scotland during the period recognized for abrupt cooling ...

Corals provide clues for climate change research

Jul 16, 2014

(Phys.org) —Just as growth rings can offer insight into climate changes occurring during the lifespan of a tree, corals have much to tell about changes in the ocean. At Caltech, climate scientists Jess ...

Recommended for you

Scientists make strides in tsunami warning since 2004

Dec 19, 2014

The 2004 tsunami led to greater global cooperation and improved techniques for detecting waves that could reach faraway shores, even though scientists still cannot predict when an earthquake will strike.

Trade winds ventilate the tropical oceans

Dec 19, 2014

Long-term observations indicate that the oxygen minimum zones in the tropical oceans have expanded in recent decades. The reason is still unknown. Now scientists at the GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research ...

User comments : 60

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

supamark23
3.3 / 5 (21) Jul 24, 2014
Cue the queue of the denier trolls in 3... 2... 1...
Scroofinator
2.4 / 5 (20) Jul 24, 2014
Well as this article has nothing to do with CO2, what is there to deny? Maybe you should rethink your pay-as-you-troll profession, your pretty bad at it.
supamark23
3.4 / 5 (17) Jul 24, 2014
Scroof, maybe you should rethink this whole "living/breathing" thing you've been doing...
Scroofinator
2.3 / 5 (16) Jul 24, 2014
Bazinga! Good one! A one trick pony at it's finest
antigoracle
2.1 / 5 (19) Jul 24, 2014
Cue the queue of the denier trolls in 3... 2... 1...

Right on cue.... the ignorant supatard.
Clap...clap...clap.
supamark23
3.3 / 5 (12) Jul 24, 2014
There's two denier trolls, only 4 or 5 to go!
Scroofinator
2.6 / 5 (20) Jul 24, 2014
only 4 or 5 to go!

What a gross understatement of the number of smart people not blinded by scientific dogma. There's plenty of us out there, better put those fear goggles back on...
supamark23
3.3 / 5 (12) Jul 24, 2014
Yeah, I hear 1/2 the population is below average... that's your peeps lol!
runrig
3.9 / 5 (14) Jul 24, 2014
only 4 or 5 to go!

What a gross understatement of the number of smart people not blinded by scientific dogma. There's plenty of us out there, better put those fear goggles back on...

Logic, my friend, where one is in the minority, and lead by ideology and not neutrality and/ or scientific learning - is that those adhering to the majority view and who are in possession of scientific insight...... Are the real possessors of eyesight. And not your ilk. The day peer-reviewed Papers supporting the denialist's view come rolling into this site, then you will be correct. Until then, go back and have a chat with your friends, the Fairies, will you. They're on the same level.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (15) Jul 24, 2014
only 4 or 5 to go!

What a gross understatement of the number of smart people not blinded by scientific dogma. There's plenty of us out there, better put those fear goggles back on...
no... your group of people thus far is a group who is presented with empirical evidence and chooses instead to believe in debunked, fringe, pseudoscience or other faith based conclusions without evidence.

thus the term denier troll used by supamark23

When yall win that 30,000 yall can talk smack with impunity. But until then, yall have not demonstrated the ability to use the scientific method to come to logical or empirically supported conclusions

http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/
If you use your posts like a call-out in bingo, your posts would cover most of that red-flag link I left

http://dialogueso...nge.html

let us know how well you do in the challenge, scroof
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (18) Jul 24, 2014
You know runrig, for an intelligent fella, you are surely ignorant.
antigoracle
1.9 / 5 (18) Jul 24, 2014
There's two denier trolls, only 4 or 5 to go!
--supatard
Thanks for confirming that 5 is the highest you could count.
strangedays
4.7 / 5 (14) Jul 24, 2014
Scroofinator
What a gross understatement of the number of smart people not blinded by scientific dogma.


I will take the scientific process of an evidentiary based system of knowledge - over a 'make shit up as you go model' any day. It constantly amazes me that anti science people spend so much of their time - on a science web site. I never go to anti science bloggs. I suspect it has something to do with insecurity - and feeling that your world view is threatened.
Dr_toad
Jul 24, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Scroofinator
1.8 / 5 (19) Jul 24, 2014
There is no "global warming", however there is most certainly climate change. Mother Nature's temperature cycle is pretty set.
http://www.grida....ge/2.jpg
The recent "pause" seems to indicate this. I believe the Milankovitch cycles describe the pattern nicely.

I hypothesize it is a combination of the Sun's polar magnetic fields and the alignment of the planets, the latter of which is the only thing that could reproduce such repetitive cycles.

The Sun's total energy remains constant: TSI only varies slightly, energy from GCRs and sunspots essentially cancel out. The only thing that we see changing are the polar fields of the sun. They are not only switching, but they are also decreasing in strength while increasing in period, meaning our solar cycle is also increasing.

This is also weakening Earth's magnetic field, causing magnetic north to drift. It would appear this weakening is also destabilizing the jetstream.
cont
Scroofinator
1.5 / 5 (17) Jul 24, 2014
We also know that other planet's weather in our system is changing. In Venus' case, which is GHG rich, the weather seems to be strengthening, not warming. This leads me to think that GHGs act as fuel for more intense weather, which is what we have witnessed during the solar maximum. AGW is real, not for warming but for intensity.

The real problem is we are currently on the tip of the 100k year "hockey stick", and we know from history that at some point we are due to see a big drop again. If we are in for another grand minimum, as many scientists would suggest, then I would be more worried about global cooling then warming. I can't think of too many more events that could lead to such a severe decrease in temperature over such a short amount of time.

I can't wait to see what you come up with to try and tell me where it's wrong.
incender
4.7 / 5 (13) Jul 24, 2014
just wondering Scroofinator how 'we', as you claim, know the weather on other planets is changing? you state the weather on Venus 'seems to be strengthening'. where do you get your information to prove this?
Scroofinator
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 24, 2014
Wind speeds have increased from 300km/h to 400km/h since 2006.
http://www.esa.in...g_faster
Another one is Jupiter's shrinking red dot
http://science.na...may_grs/
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (11) Jul 24, 2014
just wondering Scroofinator how 'we', as you claim, know the weather on other planets is changing? you state the weather on Venus 'seems to be strengthening'. where do you get your information to prove this?


I second this request.

I also want to know if Scroofy lives in Colorado and what he is smoking. I want some of that!!
thermodynamics
4.7 / 5 (13) Jul 24, 2014
Wind speeds have increased from 300km/h to 400km/h since 2006.
http://www.esa.in...g_faster


So, Scroofy, you think this is linked to global warming on the earth? Can you please give us a plausible explanation for causality?
Dr_toad
Jul 24, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
incender
4.3 / 5 (11) Jul 24, 2014
well its good to know that the runaway GHG's on Venus and her 460*C surface temp b/c of those GHG's is of no concern here on this planet, only a pesky 33% increase in wind speeds b/c of AGW might be of a concern then?
Scroofinator
1.6 / 5 (14) Jul 24, 2014
Seeing as Venus is closer to the sun, and has a modest magnetic field, the effects would be even more extreme. In theory, the planet would most likely mimic the rotational patterns of its source of energy.
http://solarscien...rn.shtml
The Sun rotates faster around its equatorial region than it does at the poles. I think that's how most planet's atmospheres function.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (11) Jul 25, 2014
You know runrig, for an intelligent fella, you are surely ignorant.


There's many an inmate of an asylum who thinks they are the only sane one in there my friend.

runrig
4.1 / 5 (9) Jul 25, 2014
You know runrig, for an intelligent fella, you are surely ignorant.


There's many an inmate of an asylum who thinks they are the only sane one in there my friend.



Oh forgot to add...
And thanks for the compliment.
As we know that you despise knowledge where it conflicts with your bias.
The tiny minority that say otherwise (yes just say, as the science stands for itself) are demigods of course.
Your definition of ignorant is indeed ignorant.
Mike_Massen
4.3 / 5 (11) Jul 25, 2014
Scroofinator worries me with this
..number of smart people not blinded by scientific dogma. There's plenty of us out there, better put those fear goggles back on...
Are you offering satire or tangential critique, I can't tell.

Surely ALL smart people who are educated re the provenance of Science must see the term "Scientific Dogma" as an oxymoron.

Science = The discipline of the Acquisition of Knowledge.

In that discipline is; hypothesis, observation, experimentation, validation etc An asymptotic process that is fully detached from (emotional) attachment to an idea such as a 'hydrino' etc by Blacklight power. This doesnt mean there are not simplistic people who claim to be or are accused of being (dogmatic) Scientists.

Dogma is a belief not grounded in (detached) evidence & has generally been exploited to control people ie Tools of the progression of wealth & thus power.

The good point about Science is its foundational, its operation does no patience for dogma !

Egleton
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 25, 2014
Of cause the climate scientists have got it wrong-but probably not in a nice way.
The article, by the way, had to do with resonance. But you already knew that because your powers of comprension are a wonder to behold.
But why bother reading it when we can get straight into the pissing competition.
Scroofinator
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 25, 2014
"Scientific Dogma" as an oxymoron

You're right, it is quite the oxymoron. As science is founded in evidence and theory, I guess it should be called something different.

Let's call it scogma: Devout beliefs founded in scientific theory which can't be proved.

The article, by the way, had to do with resonance.

I completely agree, I would guess with enough effort one would find the correlation between the oceans syncing and the Milankovitch cycles.

As for the pissing match, Stumpy offered a challenge, I supplied my answer. Please let me know where my logic and observations are flawed. I'm always open to criticism.
Mike_Massen
4.2 / 5 (10) Jul 25, 2014
Scroofinator blurted (or was it disguised comedy from a sit-down comic)
Let's call it scogma: Devout beliefs founded in scientific theory which can't be proved.
Which are the top three "founded" scientific theories (and that means the earliest) which "can't be proved" ?

We are talking the foundations, such as rectilinear motion, newton's laws, gravity etc.

Think carefully here, don't let complacency & intellectual laziness get in the way:- What foundations of Science are not proven - please articulate this well with precision and unlike so many others on physorg - without propaganda, politics but instead core foundational aspects - ok ?
Mike_Massen
4 / 5 (8) Jul 25, 2014
Egleton offered
Of cause the climate scientists have got it wrong-but probably not in a nice way.
Of course I could not possibly have guessed what you mean (seriously I am a techncial pedant of the oddest order) but, as you have good votes from those I know & I am clueless of your particular brand of obverse satire then I surely have to pursue your comment, would you be so kind to please articulate ?
Scroofinator
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 25, 2014
GHG's is of no concern here on this planet

This is definitely not the point. As I've stated many times, using fossil fuels for our energy needs is the most ignorant thing mankind can do. Pollution is real, and it's a really bad thing. We do need to act if we want a healthy and stable environment for our future generations.
EnricM
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 25, 2014
There is no "global warming", however there is most certainly climate change. Mother Nature's temperature cycle is pretty set.
http://www.grida....ge/2.jpg
The recent "pause" seems to indicate this. I believe the Milankovitch cycles describe the pattern nicely.


Well. Now we all can see what happens when weed is legalised.
EnricM
4 / 5 (4) Jul 25, 2014
GHG's is of no concern here on this planet

This is definitely not the point. As I've stated many times, using fossil fuels for our energy needs is the most ignorant thing mankind can do. Pollution is real, and it's a really bad thing. We do need to act if we want a healthy and stable environment for our future generations.


GHG's is of no concern here on this planet

This is definitely not the point. As I've stated many times, using fossil fuels for our energy needs is the most ignorant thing mankind can do. Pollution is real, and it's a really bad thing. We do need to act if we want a healthy and stable environment for our future generations.


You forgot the Magnetised Polish things and the Mila Yoyovitch Cycles!!!
Scroofinator
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 25, 2014
What foundations of Science are not proven

Newtonian gravity and GR/SR can't explain, without creating unknown/untestable particles and energies, how our universe works above the solar system scale.

AGW has been proven inadequate by assuming GHG (more specifically CO2) cause warming, as evidenced by our recent "pause" in warming. It also fails to predict the observed climate trend without reinventing the models.

Our heliosphere is misunderstood, evidenced by voyagers "unknown" position. Magnetism is essentially neglected at the cosmic scale, but more and more we see that its influence is far reaching.

That's what I got for now. Let me be clear: I'm not in any way anti-science. I am a man of science, and I refuse to accept these proposed "truths" when there is ANY evidence to suggest we don't fully understand what we are observing. The scientific method is about the burden of proof, not the assumption of it.

Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (7) Jul 25, 2014
Scroofinator countered with
Newtonian gravity and GR/SR can't explain, without creating unknown/untestable particles and energies, how our universe works above the solar system scale.
From the time of Newton until relatively recently the equation for gravity at our practical scales proves effective. It obviously requires correction at much larger scales

Eg http://en.wikiped...iki/MOND

Scroofinator claims
I am a man of science,
Well, that means you must follow the "discipline of the acquisition of knowledge" & that implies you have good training in mathematics which must include probability & statistics.

With science is the provenance of the language & the basis in probabilism so you must appreciate the probabilistic & asymptotic nature of theory development.

Gravity, as per the equations of Newton is still the foundation, no evidence it needs change but, what is likely is application of an (incremental) correction factor.

The foundation is therefore sound... next ?
Mike_Massen
4.6 / 5 (8) Jul 25, 2014
Scroofinator went on with this arbitrary claim
AGW has been proven inadequate by assuming GHG (more specifically CO2) cause warming, as evidenced by our recent "pause" in warming. It also fails to predict the observed climate trend without reinventing the models.
As a man of Science (with training) you know:-

"Adding a GHG with known thermal properties of heat retention must increase resistivity to heat flow"

Properties of CO2 re re-radiation are well known & for over ~100 years, foundation is proven.

The so-called pause is arbitrary as obviously there is more heat in the system, the evidence is clear; glacial melting, reduction in ice mass, decreased ocean salinity.

A great deal of claimed so called scientists r ignorant & cannot understand is the immense capacity of melting ice to absorb heat but, without an increase in temps - I hope you are not one of those...

As a reminder we know oceans have x 1000 capacity than atmosphere to absorb heat.

Foundation re GHG intact,
Mike_Massen
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 25, 2014
Scroofinator struggled articulating
Our heliosphere is misunderstood, evidenced by voyagers "unknown" position. Magnetism is essentially neglected at the cosmic scale, but more and more we see that its influence is far reaching.
You can qualify your claim with knowledge of any magnetic sensors on any of the far reaching spacecraft/probes ?

Suffice to say, foundation upon which it is based & at the observable practical scale ie. Gravity as previously mentioned is sound. The foundation is in place.

This doesnt meant there might not be a correction factor but, the fact NASA has been successful on the whole from launch & up suggests the foundation of gravity is sound.

Of course correction factors such as solar wind & electromagnetic effects add correction factors but, honestly I don't know if you are widely read & therefore your claim
..Magnetism is essentially neglected
is potentially unfounded, there are papers on this.

afaik, general position is known, details asymptotic.
Mike_Massen
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 25, 2014
Scroofinator added
That's what I got for now. Let me be clear: I'm not in any way anti-science. I am a man of science, and I refuse to accept these proposed "truths" when there is ANY evidence to suggest we don't fully understand what we are observing. The scientific method is about the burden of proof, not the assumption of it.
Sorry, you cannot be a "man of Science" if you expect any truths to be absolute - this goes against basic mathematics. Surely you were exposed to Heisenberg, Schrodinger and hopefully Godel ?

Surely you must accept all phenomena can be described by the normal curve, as such there is place for high & low std dev. This also crosses into language, experimental methodology & what has led you here.

Unfortunately there are many who claim to be Scientists who make arbitrary claims, imply they know an absolute, demonstrate unclear use of technical language & are quick to criticise the very process that has thus led them so far...

I hope you are not one of them.
Scroofinator
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 25, 2014
With science is the provenance of the language & the basis in probabilism so you must appreciate the probabilistic & asymptotic nature of theory development.

I do appreciate the development of science. We wouldn't be discussing this if it had not been for science.
no evidence it needs change but

Then what do you call dark energy/matter?

obviously there is more heat in the system

Correction, there's more energy in the system. It's a distinct difference.

You can qualify your claim with knowledge of any magnetic sensors on any of the far reaching spacecraft/probes

http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

This doesnt meant there might not be a correction factor but

You call it a "missing correction factor", I call it founded on inaccurate assumptions. Either way, throughout that whole 3 post rebut, you essentially agreed with me by saying we still don't completely understand what science claims as known truths.
Scroofinator
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 25, 2014
Unfortunately there are many who claim to be Scientists who make arbitrary claims, imply they know an absolute, demonstrate unclear use of technical language & are quick to criticise the very process that has thus led them so far...


I'm no scientist, just an engineer with an inclination toward understanding our universe through science.

I don't criticize the process, just the execution of it.

Also, I don't take credit for these ideas, as their foundations were laid before me. We are all riding on the backs of giants...
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 25, 2014
You know runrig, for an intelligent fella, you are surely ignorant.


There's many an inmate of an asylum who thinks they are the only sane one in there my friend.


Oh, still got you locked up I see.
The real world blew your mind, as it continues to defy the prophesies of doom and gloom from the AGW Cult.
That's what happens when you believe climate "science" is science.
ViperSRT3g
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 25, 2014
Unfortunately there are many who claim to be Scientists who make arbitrary claims, imply they know an absolute, demonstrate unclear use of technical language & are quick to criticise the very process that has thus led them so far...


I'm no scientist, just an engineer with an inclination toward understanding our universe through science.

I don't criticize the process, just the execution of it.

Also, I don't take credit for these ideas, as their foundations were laid before me. We are all riding on the backs of giants...

You don't believe in the scientific method as being the foundation of science (execution), and yet you still want to "understand the universe through science?"

How is peer review not a self-cleaning method designed by its very nature to weed out inaccuracies, and promote correct observations and evidence?

You can't establish functioning models of the way nature works without developing a theory. Theories are built upon research through said peer reviewed journals as the researcher builds enough evidence to establish their theory as being legitimate. Theories are then tested against observations and experimental evidence to prove their validity. It's the reason why THEORIES of Gravity, Quantum Mechanics, and Relativity are considered THEORIES. We don't know exactly how nature works in everything that it does. But our theories have been tested against countless observations and experiments and they still hold true. When something new and unexpected pops up, theories are modified to match the observations after being peer reviewed to remove any possible errors. What part of this does not make itself trustable? Our theories are why we know atoms exist. It's impossible for anyone to directly observe with their naked eye a single atom. But we know and have proven they exist thanks to our theories. Based upon this theory, we build other theories which is where quantum mechanics come into play. We already can't see atoms directly, but we have theories that show that even the subatomic particles making up these unobservable atoms are also made up of their own even smaller particles. And guess what? Our working theories of how these things work is what allows us to observe said atoms because we develop WORKING technology that enables us to view them.

Your logic on its own doesn't even make sense.

It seems as though many people don't think deeply as to why science is the way it is today, and more importantly, how it got there.
Mike_Massen
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 25, 2014
Scroofinator said
Correction, there's more energy in the system. It's a distinct difference
No.
All energy; in its flow, expression or destination results in heat - thats it !

In the process of changing from momentum or light etc results in energetic activity, storms etc but, you must agree always becomes heat.
You call it a "missing correction factor"
NO - you use quotation marks as if I said it.

That is a Lie !

You claim to be an engineer so be Precise otherwise you are guilty of intellectual dishonesty.

I said correction factors need to be added & related to an issue of scale.

Eg. It is an absolute truth to say "Gravity at the practical scale with GR/SR works satisfactorily" but, what idiot believes faith like there is any absolute truth, its an issue of linguistics & semantics.

Scroofinator again
..we still don't completely understand what science claims as known truths.
I understand your dilemma, you expect an absolute/static truth.

No, all are relative !
Scroofinator
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 25, 2014
Viper,
How the hell did you get
You don't believe in the scientific method as being the foundation of science

out of anything I said?

Also, why is it that you conformists are always preaching about peer-review? I've provided peer-reviewed sources, but it does nothing to change the perspective of the ones who don't want their perspective changed.

All energy; in its flow, expression or destination results in heat - thats it !

What about all the stored energy (in the form of GHG) in the ice and permafrost? Are you saying it's a cold heat?

I said correction factors need to be added & related to an issue of scale.

So what factors are currently being proposed? Please enlighten me.

I understand your dilemma, you expect an absolute/static truth.

I expect science to provide a fundamental understanding of the workings of the universe, not just models. Maxwell and others provided as much for EM, what's hindering physics from doing the same for gravity?

Dr_toad
Jul 25, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Mike_Massen
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 25, 2014
Scroofinator went off beam with this
What about all the stored energy (in the form of GHG) in the ice and permafrost?
How can u claim its an 'energy' its a massive heat sink - how is it otherwise ?
So what factors are currently being proposed? Please enlighten me.
Have already provided this link:- http://en.wikiped...iki/MOND
I expect science to provide a fundamental understanding of the workings of the universe, not just models.
Try to understand:-

It takes time Scroofinator,
Before Newton was a passable understanding, afterwards it improved.

You claim to be an engineer yet you skipped my point about 'asymptotic'.

Did you also not understand the process of Science is probabilistic.

Engineers understand, why don't you ?

Science follows a particular discipline, to be a "Man of Science" as you claim you Must follow that discipline or your claim is rubbish.

Are you a "Man of Science" - do you not understand truths are tied with language/semantics
Mike_Massen
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 25, 2014
Scroofinator desired
I expect science to provide a fundamental understanding of the workings of the universe, not just models. Maxwell and others provided as much for EM, what's hindering physics from doing the same for gravity?
Is there something I am missing in your approach ?

Maxwell provided equation THAT is the model but, its not clear if it works at very high gravitational fields eg Black holes.

Newton provide equation THAT is the model - it works for practical scales fine.

How is Newton's equations less than Maxwells, both are models ?

Obviously there is an exception re gravity, might be addressed by this:-
http://en.wikiped...iki/MOND

It does not however, change gravitation for our scales or stop us sending craft into orbit.

Scroofinator, you havent addressed the possible unwelcome fact there are no absolute truths, all are relative & the process of Science is supremely probabilistic & asymptotic.

Why do you not address that - the evidence is overwhelming !
Scroofinator
2.1 / 5 (7) Jul 25, 2014
How can u claim its an 'energy' its a massive heat sink - how is it otherwise ?

Well, in your logic, it takes potential heat out of the atmosphere by storing it in ice, i.e potential energy.

How is Newton's equations less than Maxwells, both are models ?

Ok, I concede both are just approximate models, and both have flaws describing some aspects of the observations they're supposed to predict.

Obviously there is an exception re gravity, might be addressed by this:-
http://en.wikiped...iki/MOND

This only addresses one of the inadequacies with gravity.
Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MoND) is a theory that proposes a modification of Newton's law of gravity to explain the galaxy rotation problem.

I think we all realize there's more that needs to be explain than just the unexpected/unexplained rotation of the galaxy.

you havent addressed the possible unwelcome fact there are no absolute truths

Maybe, for now. But how can you be absolutely sure?

runrig
4.1 / 5 (9) Jul 25, 2014
Also, why is it that you conformists are always preaching about peer-review? I've provided peer-reviewed sources, but it does nothing to change the perspective of the ones who don't want their perspective changed.

Yes you did, and I thanked you for it (cloud nucleation).
However it threw up more questions than it answered - especially in not fitting theory.

Nothing changes our perspective because no alternative to the GHG theory fits in both causation and correlation (and observation of back-emitted IR). Science has been looking and nothing comes close.
To have the same tired arguments come around and around about possible other alternatives does not make them more likely. If there was any chance of that then scientists would be studying it - as they are with are with CR cloud nucleation.
Scroofinator
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 25, 2014
runrig,
Thanks for getting back on topic.

However it threw up more questions than it answered - especially in not fitting theory.

Did you not read what I wrote earlier on this page? GCRs do not effect the climate. That's not what I was implying with that paper. I was showing the correlation to the temperature change and cloud cover during the Maunder Min. The causation of which is the weakening of the polar magnetic fields of the Sun.

To have the same tired arguments come around and around about possible other alternatives does not make them more likely.

What part of my argument is tired? Try to find some research linking planetary alignments, along with the Sun's varying magnetic field, to the Earth's long term temperature, I haven't found any yet.

What's your explanation for the pattern that we see when we look back 400k years?
runrig
4.2 / 5 (10) Jul 25, 2014
What part of my argument is tired? Try to find some research linking planetary alignments, along with the Sun's varying magnetic field, to the Earth's long term temperature, I haven't found any yet.

What's your explanation for the pattern that we see when we look back 400k years?

With respect you haven't been here very long - I have - many years and, trust me, the argument you make is tired. Not common I'll admit,but merry-go rounded just the same.

You say "I was showing the correlation to the temperature change and cloud cover during the Maunder Min.The causation of which is the weakening of the polar magnetic fields of the Sun."
I say there is no such correlation The paper you evidenced did not link cloud with temps at all - that is a whole and enormously complicated question to answer.

It may surprise you to learn that I am open to (sensible) alternative views. I know of the
Planetary alignment theory of solar cycles FI...
http://www.john-d...rend.htm
Mike_Massen
3.9 / 5 (7) Jul 25, 2014
Scroofinator oddly mumbled
Well, in your logic, it takes potential heat out of the atmosphere by storing it in ice, i.e potential energy.
No. Its not my logic - where the f..k did I EVER say it 'stores' it - are you misquoting me AGAIN, don't you know this is Wrong - its a type of lie, intellectually dishonesty ! ?

Heat moves from high to low, it takes heat out of the atmosphere, it is only potential for energy use if & only if there is a heat sink at a lower (& useful) temperature. Otherwise the heat is not 'stored' in ice - it raises its temperature by a known amount - its called specific heat and its different for ice vs melting water vs water etc.

But, hey you claim to be an engineer & don't seem to know basics about heat just what sort of "Engineer" are you, which uni teaches engineering & doesn't cover heat ! ! ! ?????

Tell me explicitly if/when you have come across these ?

http://en.wikiped...echanics

http://en.wikiped...iki/Heat

?
Mike_Massen
3.9 / 5 (7) Jul 25, 2014
Scroofinator challenged re truths but, from last post I wonder if he is being genuine re his claim of Engineering
Maybe, for now. But how can you be absolutely sure?
Well if there were then by now you would know & wouldn't have to ask !

Language is inextricably linked with intelligence which means observational/cognition skills are augmented when such paradigm is recognised. In my observation all aspects of observations that are communicable require language that has a shared common base. Other than mere grunts what is there at a base level that suggests there is an absolute truth of any sort free from any language obfuscation - none ?

In terms of English, here is one absolute truth, all is relative !

Life is based upon:- Food, Shelter & Sex & not necessarily in that order. The rest is fluff, has no meaning, there are no deities - if there were all would be easily accused of being:-

- Created by Men
- Have problems with women
- Are bad communicators
- Only subject to claims
runrig
3.9 / 5 (7) Jul 25, 2014
Wrong website linked in my post below ( have it saved but have not examined it in any way at all ).
http://landscheid...ess.com/

NB:I say I am open to this sort of thing and not that I accept it.
Scroofinator
2 / 5 (8) Jul 25, 2014
Nice first link runrig, it's a gem.
If the pattern holds, a preponderance of La Niña is to be expected during the Hale cycle that began in 1996. So far, one El Niño is faced with two La Niñas, the second of which is still continuing. A predominance of La Niñas, lasting 22 years, would have a strong effect on global temperature comparable to the cool period in the sixties and early seventies when temperatures were falling in spite of a steep increase in anthropogenic carbon dioxide.

This man predicted pretty much what we are seeing.

Consider AGWs latest predicition:
http://www.elnino.noaa.gov/

Finally,
I have demonstrated that there is a close connection between energetic solar eruptions on the one hand and ENSO and the NAO on the other (Landscheidt, 1999 a, 2000 a, 2001). So it could be that solar eruptions, too, have an impact on the PDO


If I'm looking for direction, I'm going with guy who has the better predictions.
Scroofinator
1.4 / 5 (11) Jul 25, 2014
MM
Sorry, I should have said you implied as much with
its a massive heat sink

Don't heat sinks store energy? They don't instantly cool, ice is just a large scale version that stores heat for a very long time, along with GHGs.

Well if there were then by now you would know & wouldn't have to ask !

Lol, nice. I like to live in the now and think toward the future.

You must lead a sad life if its
based upon:- Food, Shelter & Sex & not necessarily in that order. The rest is fluff, has no meaning

Where is your sense of wonder man? The universe is an unimaginable thing, and we now have the technology to start putting together these puzzles. No offense, but I take my cues from giants...

[q"People like you and I, though mortal of course, like everyone else, do not grow old no matter how long we live. What I mean is that we never cease to stand like curious children before the great Mystery into which we were born."
~Einstein

I wonder why he capitalized Mystery?
runrig
4 / 5 (8) Jul 26, 2014
If I'm looking for direction, I'm going with guy who has the better predictions.


Scroofy...
You have an advantage in that I have not read this paper (at least not in recent memory).
However we have a possible correlation and no (exact) causation.
And we do not have a source of solar energy (W/m*2) driving temps.
What (seems) to be indicted here is a possible link with the Earth's natural climate cycles.
Which, as we know only shifts about the planet already stored energy.
runrig
4 / 5 (8) Jul 26, 2014
Scroofy...
Lets get the idea of "stored" energy in ice and LH correct shall we.

When water moves from a more energetic state to a less energetic state it gives up energy (latent heat of fusion) - this warms the atmosphere and so is released heat.
When it melts it takes back the very same energy (334 kJ/Kg) from the atmosphere (or oceans).

Ice is therefore a sink (or buffer) for energy in the climate system.
It is not stored heat in the sense that any will be released when it melts - the opposite happens - it cools the climate system.
If this is what you meant all along I apologise - just wanted to clear it up.
Mike_Massen
4.1 / 5 (9) Jul 26, 2014
Scroofinator doesn't sound like an Engineer at all with this quip
Don't heat sinks store energy?
Huh - at a lower temperature - NO - what engineering ?

Scroofinator again
They don't instantly cool, ice is just a large scale version that stores heat for a very long time, along with GHGs.
If that were true then you could get the heat back, how could you possibly do that ?

Scroofinator, I am stunned at how little you know about heat, did you read the article I linked you to ?

Which uni gave you an Engineering degree & why did that not include the study of heat ?

If you don't reply on that you have been caught out in a lie & that means you are wasting all our time ?

My life is fine, when you know the fundamentals of existence then you can explore the fluff and create useful products & engage with people. I enjoy dealing with people that are honest & smart, sadly I feel I have wasted my time with you.

You come across as dishonest & seriously pretending to be not-smart ?
jackjump
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 26, 2014
If synchronized climate variability of the North Pacific ocean and the North Atlantic ocean was followed by the rapid warm up that put us into the interglacial in which we now find ourselves I would think the most obvious speculation to make from this information is not that some additional synchronization could portend a global warming meltdown but that the loss of that synchronization would likely portend a return to glaciation. Anyway synchronization seems a symptom rather than a cause and doesn't help much with explaining things.
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (11) Jul 27, 2014
Stupid people smoke weed too. It doesn't help one think, but it doesn't prevent it either.
--toadtard
Well your mum definitely did when she was having you. It might explain why she left the baby at the hospital and brought home the turd.
Protoplasmix
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 27, 2014
There's an interesting blog post from an ecologist, Richard Telford, who used a 1000 year window to calculate the running correlation, plotted along with the 2000 year window used by Praetorius & Mix. He offers an alternative hypothesis that the synchronisation resulted from the transition rather than caused the transition. See "Thoughts on tipping points relevant to Praetorius & Mix (2014)": http://quantpalae...ix-2014/

He also points out that "correlations about as large as that preceding the Bølling-Allerød transition occur three times in the Holocene without being followed by a critical transition." And so I was wondering: what was different during the Holocene that may have prevented a transition?
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (3) Jul 29, 2014
And we do not have a source of solar energy (W/m*2) driving temps

Right, solar energy remains steady. Solar magnetic fields, however, do not remain constant. It is the only thing that varies, and the only thing other than CO2 that can explain climate change. Given that AGW was way off with there last ~20-30 year estimates, should we not look for an alternative solution? We have 2 possibilities, with only one being seriously pursued, so would Occam's Razor suggest we try option 2 when option 1 fails?

It is not stored heat in the sense that any will be released when it melts - the opposite happens - it cools the climate system.

Thanks for elaborating. Thermodynamics wasn't a pre-req for EE at my school so I just think of these things in terms of energy potential.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.