Jerusalem, February 2, 2014 – Can naturally occurring processes selectively buffer the full brunt of global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activities?
Yes, find researchers from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Johns Hopkins University in the US and NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center.
As the globe warms, ocean temperatures rise, leading to increased water vapor escaping into the atmosphere. Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas, and its impact on climate is amplified in the stratosphere.
In a detailed study, the researchers from the three institutions examined the causes of changes in the temperatures and water vapor in the tropical tropopause layer (TTL). The TTL is a critical region of our atmosphere with characteristics of both the troposphere below and the stratosphere above.
The TTL can have significant influences on both atmospheric chemistry and climate, as its temperature determines how much water vapor can enter the stratosphere. Therefore, understanding any changes in the temperature of the TTL and what might be causing them is an important scientific question of significant societal relevance, say the researchers.
The Israeli and US scientists used measurements from satellite observations and output from chemistry-climate models to understand recent temperature trends in the TTL. Temperature measurements show where significant changes have taken place since 1979.
The satellite observations have shown that warming of the tropical Indian Ocean and tropical Western Pacific Ocean – with resulting increased precipitation and water vapor there — causes the opposite effect of cooling in the TTL region above the warming sea surface. Once the TTL cools, less water vapor is present in the TTL and also above in the stratosphere,
Since water vapor is a very strong greenhouse gas, this effect leads to a negative feedback on climate change. That is, the increase in water vapor due to enhanced evaporation from the warming oceans is confined to the near- surface area, while the stratosphere becomes drier. Hence, this effect may actually slightly weaken the more dire forecasted aspects of an increasing warming of our climate, the scientists say.
The researchers are Dr. Chaim Garfinkel of the Fredy and Nadine Herrmann Institute of Earth Sciences at the Hebrew University and formerly of Johns Hopkins University, Dr. D. W. Waugh and Dr. L. Wang of Johns Hopkins, and Dr. L. D. Oman and Dr. M. M. Hurwitz of the Goddard Space Flight Center. Their findings have been published in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, and the research was also highlighted in Nature Climate Change.
From the The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
UPDATE: The Hockey Schtick adds this perspective
New paper finds negative-feedback cooling from water vapor could almost completely offset warming from CO2
A new paper published in the Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres finds water vapor can act as a negative-feedback cooling effect to significantly counteract anthropogenic global warming.
According to the paper, “The satellite observations have shown that warming of the tropical Indian Ocean and tropical Western Pacific Ocean — with resulting increased precipitation and water vapor there — causes the opposite effect of cooling in the tropical tropopause region above the warming sea surface. Once the tropical tropopause cools, less water vapor is present in the tropical tropopause and also above in the stratosphere,
Since water vapor is a very strong greenhouse gas, this effect leads to a negative feedback on climate change. That is, the increase in water vapor due to enhanced evaporation from the warming oceans is confined to the near- surface area, while the stratosphere becomes drier. Hence, this effect may actually slightly weaken the more dire forecasted aspects of an increasing warming of our climate, the scientists say.”
The paper itself says, “In the lower stratosphere, the changes in water vapor and temperature due to projected future sea surface temperatures are of similar strength to, though slightly weaker than, that due directly to projected future CO2, ozone, and methane,” which would indicate that this negative-feedback cooling effect is almost equivalent to the warming effect of man-made CO2, ozone, and methane and could almost fully offset global warming.
The paper is similar to another recent paper published in Nature Climate Change, finding warming of sea surface temperatures in the Indian and Pacific Ocean ‘warm pool’ is causing less water vapor to enter the top of the troposphere and could cause global cooling from this negative-feedback. The papers add to many others finding water vapor acts as a negative-feedback, not positive as assumed by IPCC climate models. Climate model false assumptions of positive-feedback from water vapor are the entire basis of Mann-made global warming alarm.
For pity’s sake, enough of this scam. Haven’t any of these so called climate scientists heard about the water cycle? Don’t any of them know how we get winds and weather?
The AGW claim that “the Earth would be 33°C colder without greenhouse gases”, as AGW defines greenhouse gases, infrared heat imbibing, is a deliberate science fraud.
This is a simple sleight of hand, they have taken out the whole of the water cycle to create their AGW scenario, but they begin by taking out the real gas properties and processes of the bulk of our atmosphere, nitrogen and oxygen, which as the fluid gas air are the first step in regulating Earth’s temperature.
It begins here:
In traditional physics that -18°C is not the temperature of the Earth without AGW’s “greenhouse gases” in either of the two definitions they give, “all infrared heat imbibing or all such minus water”.
In traditional science that -18°C is attributed to the Earth without any atmosphere at all, and, the comparison is with the Moon without an atmosphere, which traditionally is given as -23°C.
The traditional science teaching figures are:
Earth with atmosphere, 15°C
Earth without atmosphere, -18°C
Moon without atmosphere, -23°C
Earth with atmosphere but without water, 67°C (think deserts)
They have gone to great lengths to eliminate all knowledge of the great cooling power of the Water Cycle because it shows how great the power of the real greenhouse gases nitrogen and oxygen in regulating the Earth’s temperature.
In traditional science, it is the real gas greenhouse gases nitrogen and oxygen and water which regulate temperature – that is why our atmosphere was first likenened to a greenhouse, real greenhouses both warm and cool to obtain optimum growing conditions for life.
AGW’s fake “greenhouse gases” which only warm is simply ludicrous.
So, unlike the Moon without our real gases for its atmosphere, the Earth is protected from the extremes of cold and heat. First by the warming power our real greenhouse gases nitrogen and oxygen which form a thermal blanket preventing heat from escaping too quickly before the surface is again heated by the Sun, air is a poor conductor of heat, and second, in these gases cooling by heat transfer away from the surface by convection, and, cooling by convection currents, winds. Hot air rises cold air sinks.
Just with these real gases mainly nitrogen and oxygen, practically 100% of our atmosphere without water, we would have a temperature of 67°C and not 15°C.
Water, which some AGWs claim is a greenhouse gas because it imbibes ir, which further reduces the heat from that 67°C, which the real gas air can achieve in expanding when heated and condensing when cooled. Water has a very high heat capacity, which means it takes longer to heat it up before it changes temperature and conversely it takes longer to cool, to lose that heat. ‘Trapping’ heat can only really apply to water here.
Through the Water Cycle great amounts of heat are taken up and away into the cooler heights by evaporation, where the water vapour cools and condenses back to liquid water and returns to the surface in precipitation.
Water cools the Earth down 52°C to bring the temperature back to 15°C from the 67°C the Earth would be without it.
Wiki also mentions this traditional science teaching of water’s great cooling power, on its Water Cycle page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_cycle
“The water cycle is powered from solar energy. 86% of the global evaporation occurs from the oceans, reducing their temperature by evaporative cooling.[18] Without the cooling, the effect of evaporation on the greenhouse effect would lead to a much higher surface temperature of 67 °C (153 °F), and a warmer planet.”
This is still taught in standard traditional science from the empirically very well understood properties and process of real gases under gravity. AGW has changed all of these.
There is no mechanism to get AGW’s “33°C warming by ir imbibing greenhouse gases from the -18°C it would be without them”.
It is an illusion created by deliberate misattribution and changing the properties and processes of the natural real gas atmosphere around us.
It is disgraceful that ‘climate scientists’ are completely ignorant of basic meteorology.
Odd that they are just finding negative feedback now, common sense dictates they must exist because we are still here; if all were positive feedbacks we’d either have gone Venusian or Ice-ball eons ago.
So a new study says so eh. Well they just haven’t been reading my posts like they should. I’ve been saying for years, that we couldn’t appreciably change the Temperature on this planet, if we wanted to; well until we boil away all the oceans.
And how many times do I have to say, that water vapor itself is perfectly capable of kicking off a warming incident or a cooling incident, and doesn’t need ANY prompting from some CO2 galley slave driver. Freaky weather that leads to excessive precipitation, might be expected to then let more sun energy come in, and warm things up, leading to a burst of evaporation to put things back on keel.
Supposedly, Peter Humbug did a terraflop simulation (or X-box) in which he took every last H2O molecule out of the atmosphere, and then let real physics take over.
He got all the earth’s atmospheric water back again in three months. Well that’s what I remember from his paper. Not sure where I read it; SCIENCE, or Physics Today, or maybe Siam, but I did read it.
@HGW: The problem is that the alarmist camp simply lacks the proof sufficient to justify the kinds of changes they want to make to our economy. But it’s not just that their justification lacks proof, their solutions to the supposed problem are mostly fictional; they are unable to provide for our needs now or in the foreseeable future. To sum up, none of it works. Hell, I’m all for not burning fossil fuels too, but I need a good reason to quit, and I need some economic justification. On top of that, it’s fairly obvious that the hard left and the greens simply took global warming and used it to justify their pre-existing agenda.
If our climate were as unstable as the alarmists claim, this dreaded climate change would have happened already. The climate will change in time, but not in a time frame that we have to worry about.
“””””……1sky1 says:
February 3, 2014 at 4:39 pm
Those inclined to presume solid knowledge of the effect of stratospheric water vapor upon surface and/or lower tropospheric temperatures would be well-advised to read Ellsaesser’s tutorial review ….”””””
Did that; too many personal opinions, and selections and conflicting data to be ignored for my taste.
If you ignore conflicting data; you are almost certain to bet on the wrong one. Proper modeling, would include all data, conflicting or not; assuming it is real data.
“””””……Mike Maguire says:
February 3, 2014 at 4:23 pm
Earth’s clouds are getting lower, NASA satellite finds:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120222114358.htm
“Scientists at the University of Auckland in New Zealand analyzed the first 10 years of global cloud-top height measurements (from March 2000 to February 2010) from the Multi-angle Imaging SpectroRadiometer (MISR) instrument on NASA’s Terra spacecraft. ……””””””
Well I talked with Prof Davies about this paper, when I was back there, and got a copy of it. He’s a realist. I have not ever gained a sense of the UofA Physics Dep’t party line; I think they have a range The prof opined that a lot of these scientists do know which way is up, despite what they put in Peered at papers.
Mike M says:
February 3, 2014 at 12:55 pm
Does this mean that instead of AGW causing a “hot spot” it instead causes a “cool spot”?
—————————————————————————————————————-
It means that natural influences are in complete control of atmospheric and oceanic systems. The small influence that humans may have on natural controls is overwhelmed by the forcings of Nature.
Hi, George E. Smith (how’s son doing in college? — hope all is well),
Re: “…or maybe Siam, but I did read it.” Of course you did, dear Mr. Smith, in a book… that (you) took … from a shelf. (you were remembering, I think, the lyrics from “Faraway Places,” recorded by many artists, including Bing Crosby in 1948).
Take care, down there,
Janice
SNIP
“Myrrh” Your email address is FAKE. So, per blog policy, you won’t be allowed to comment here further. Beat it.- Anthony
MX record about yahoo.com exists.
Connection succeeded to mta6.am0.yahoodns.net SMTP.
220 mta1250.mail.ne1.yahoo.com ESMTP ready
> HELO verify-email.org
250 mta1250.mail.ne1.yahoo.com
> MAIL FROM:
=250 sender ok
> RCPT TO:
=554 delivery error: dd This user doesn’t have a yahoo.com account (asbeforebefore@yahoo.com) [0] – mta1250.mail.ne1.yahoo.com
HGW xx/7
Thank you for your lengthy response. I did not post the information that I posted to “win people over to my camp”. I posted it to show that the paper is simply positing a mechanism that has been predicted and modeled for some time now. I placed a link in the post showing where they were talking about this very same dynamic.
the reason I posted this is to show that the use of this paper as some kind of “proof” that the earth will cool itself down and somehow not experience global warming is not only not true but actually misrepresenting the paper and the science behind it.
for the record. . .
jmitchell;
I posted it to show that the paper is simply positing a mechanism that has been predicted and modeled for some time now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Say WHAT? What you alluded to in your post is, in fact, incorporated into the models. If you think that what this paper is about is the same thing…. LOL. Wow, you are over your head so far you don’t know you are drowning.
Why, thank you, M-od-erator (didn’t want to force you to have to answer the mo-der-ation bell AGAIN), for making off of of. Heh, heh, heh. Now, THAT was fun to write.
#(:))
Michael M wrote “Does this mean that instead of AGW causing a “hot spot” it instead causes a “cool spot”?
Nope. It means that the hot spot is being masked by the reported effect. As soon as the effect goes away, the hot spot will return with a vengeance. The models say so.
jai mitchell says:
February 3, 2014 at 1:59 pm
ummmm
this has been well documented for years and years.
it fits the climate models. nothing new here, move along people. . .move along. . .
http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/strato_cooling.asp
One way to think about the problem is that the amount of infrared heat energy radiated out to space by a planet is roughly equal to the amount of solar energy it receives from the sun. If the surface atmosphere warms, there must be compensating cooling elsewhere in the atmosphere in order to keep the amount of heat given off by the planet the same. As emissions of greenhouse gases continue to rise, their cooling effect on the stratosphere will increase.
===
Well I guess they got that bit wrong as well then:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=750
TLS dropped as a result of the two major eruptions during the record and has been essentially FLAT since 1995.
Well, well, well…………bit more heat, bit more evaporation of water, more water in the atmosphere, some more cloud development, helps things cool down a bit…………..NOW WHY DIDN’T WE THINK OF THAT BEFORE?/sarc.
jai mitchell says:
February 3, 2014 at 8:56 pm
The thing is, Jai, we had better hope and pray some well-mixed trace gas can delay the next glacial inception. Onset of the Little Ice Age after the Medieval Warm Period, right when the Holocene reached about half a precession cycle old, was harrowing enough. The Modern Warm Period, reportedly less warm then the MWP, marks the second thermal pulse, a few centuries older than half a precession cycle, and still within the Holocene.
If the AGW hypothesis is correct, then the Industrial Age may very well have occurred at exactly the most opportune time for H. sapiens, perhaps during the second thermal pulse, the recent grand solar maximum, at the end of the interglaciation. Treat the antithesis of AGW lightly at your peril:
“In this paper we consider the problem of the timing of the next glacial inception, about which there is on-going debate.
“We will illustrate our case with reference to a debate currently taking place in the circle of Quaternary climate scientists. The climate history of the past few million years is characterized by repeated transitions between `cold’ (glacial) and `warm’ (interglacial) climates. The first modern men were hunting mammoth during the last glacial era. This era culminated around 20,000 years ago [3] and then declined rapidly. By 9,000 years ago climate was close to the modern one. The current interglacial, called the Holocene, should now be coming to an end, when compared to previous interglacials, yet clearly it is not. The debate is about when to expect the next glacial inception, setting aside human activities, which may well have perturbed
natural cycles.”
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0906.3625.pdf
This is in regards to Ruddiman’s 2003 paper laying forth the Early Anthropogenic Hypothesis http://courses.washington.edu/holocene/Ruddiman-Holocene_Carbon_Cycle_Anthropocene-ClimChange03.pdf
Chronis Tzedakis, in an exhaustive look at the MIS-1/MIS-11/MIS-19 conundrum, considers the matters thusly (http://www.clim-past.net/6/131/2010/cp-6-131-2010.pdf):
“While the astronomical analogy between MIS 1 and MIS11 has been incorporated in mainstream literature, there is a distinct difference between the two intervals: the Holocene contains one insolation peak so far, while the MIS 11 interval of full interglacial conditions (Substage 11c of the marine isotopic stratigraphy) extends over two insolation peaks. Thus an interesting situation has arisen with regard to the precise alignment of the two intervals.”
“The two schemes lead to very different conclusions about the length of the current interglacial, in the absence of anthropogenic forcing, …
“With the end of MIS 11 full interglacial conditions and the start of ice accumulation estimated to have occurred at 395 kyr BP (de Abreu et al., 2005; Ruddiman 2005a, 2007), the precessional alignment would suggest that the Holocene is nearing its end, while the obliquity alignment would suggest it has another 12,000 years to run its course.
“In this view, the two Terminations are incommensurate and MIS-1 is analogous only to the second part of MIS-11c.”
Tzedakis (2010) concludes with:
“On balance, what emerges is that projections on the natural duration of the current interglacial depend on the choice of analogue, while corroboration or refutation of the “early anthropogenic hypothesis” on the basis of comparisons with earlier interglacials remains irritatingly inconclusive.”
However, even more interesting are these comments:
“Investigating the processes that led to the end of the last interglacial period is relevant for understanding how our ongoing interglacial will end, which has been a matter of much debate…..
“The onset of the LEAP occurred within less than two decades, demonstrating the existence of a sharp threshold, which must be near 416 Wm2, which is the 65oN July insolation for 118 kyr BP (ref. 9). This value is only slightly below today’s value of 428 Wm2. Insolation will remain at this level slightly above the inception for the next 4,000 years before it then increases again.” http://www.particle-analysis.info/LEAP_Nature__Sirocko+Seelos.pdf
Sole, Turiel and Llebot writing in http://einstein.iec.cat/jellebot/documents/articles/Phis.Lett.A_2007.pdf state:
“In this work ice-core CO2 time evolution in the period going from 20 to 60 kyr BP [15] has been qualitatively compared to our temperature cycles, according to the class they belong to. It can be observed in Fig. 6 that class A cycles are completely unrelated to changes in CO2 concentration. We have observed some correlation between B and C cycles and CO2 concentration, but of the opposite sign to the one expected: maxima in atmospheric CO2 concentration tend to correspond to the middle part or the end the cooling period. The role of CO2 in the oscillation phenomena seems to be more related to extend the duration of the cooling phase than to trigger warming. This could explain why cycles not coincident in time with maxima of CO2 (A cycles) rapidly decay back to the cold state.
“Nor CO2 concentration either the astronomical cycle change the way in which the warming phase takes place. The coincidence in this phase is strong among all the characterized cycles; also, we have been able to recognize the presence of a similar warming phase in the early stages of the transition from glacial to interglacial age. Our analysis of the warming phase seems to indicate a universal triggering mechanism, what has been related with the possible existence of stochastic resonance [1,13, 21]. It has also been argued that a possible cause for the repetitive sequence of D/O events could be found in the change in the thermohaline Atlantic circulation [2,8,22,25]. However, a cause for this regular arrangement of cycles, together with a justification on the abruptness of the warming phase, is still absent in the scientific literature.”
I assume you comprehend the problems here, Jai.
At the absolute worst is that without anthropogenic influence (including early anthropogenic influence) some say we would already be deep into the next glacial inception. Others say it that is inconclusive. Still others argue either way, we are still uncomfortably close to the N65 summer solstice insolation value that threshold-ed inception of the last glacial. And will “remain at this level slightly above the inception for the next 4,000 years before it then increases again.”
Basically, it’s your classic Gordian Knot. Assume, for instance, the worst case for CO2. Then assume, for instance, that glacial inception should have already occurred if not for the early anthopogenic hypothesis (GHGs, land use etc.). You know from Sole, Turiel and Llebot (2007) that “The role of CO2 in the oscillation phenomena seems to be more related to extend the duration of the cooling phase than to trigger warming.” So think very carefully.
Strip the heathen devil gas from the late Holocene atmosphere and take your glacial inception chances? Really? That is your recommendation? According to the early anthropogenic hypothesis we should already be in the next glacial were it not for AGW! You are recommending removing the only (so far) hypothesized glacial inception deterrent?
Why Jai? Why would you even entertain removing such a possible climate security blanket for at least the next 4,000 years? That, Jai, is the single most important question ever to be asked of a member of the genus Homo…….
It doesn’t really matter how H2O or CO2 feedbacks work. What actually matters is how we can keep the Holocene going. Imagine where the genus Homo would now be if our technological evolution had been choked off by the LIA? Whale oil for light? We didn’t make it to electricity or fission? But we did make it to the next ~90,000 year long ice age?
Who knows, maybe you Jai, and your ilk, can redress this grievous climate wrong…… It is, after all, a noble cause for the genus. But maybe not so much for the species. Imagine present-day hominids dealing with either a swift or long-drawn-out glacial inception……, which, if you are right, you might actually be able to precipitate. How well adapted are we, are you, for such a long speciation level freeze? H. neanderthalensis, a particularly well-adapted cold species hominid, didn’t make it to this interglacial. Will H. sapiens sapiens make it genetically intact to the next one?
Perhaps the most fascinating thing of all hominid time to date is what if Jai et al are right? Removing anything resembling a late Holocene climate security blanket at such a potentially perilous climate time as a half-precession old interglacial might actually precipitate an extinction level event! At least for the less aware members of the species. And ~90kyr long ice ages are well known to whittle down hominid populations.
My question for you, Jai, is which would you prefer? Present-day hominids surviving genetically intact to the next interglacial (leaving anything resembling a climate security blanket up there, at least for the next 4k years until insolation increases once again), or the climate-sharpened hominids you could possibly jump-start by removing any known or perceived atmospheric roadblock to the next glacial inception? Only if you are right do you actually get to choose……..
Otherwise, Jai, enjoy this precious little interglacial, while it lasts………….
Congratulations Willis, another of your theories being proven.
Seems to me that the ‘missing heat buried in the deep oceans’ has been transported up, up and away by water evaporation and clouds thence to radiate back out of the atmosphere.
Not to mention the 156 watts of incoming solar IR blocked by GH gasses from reaching the surface and thus reducing Tmax.
“The paper itself says, “In the lower stratosphere, the changes in water vapor and temperature due to projected future sea surface temperatures are of similar strength to, though slightly weaker than, that due directly to projected future CO2, ozone, and methane,” which would indicate that this negative-feedback cooling effect is almost equivalent to the warming effect of man-made CO2, ozone, and methane and could almost fully offset global warming.”
I wonder what figures they used for man-made warming? Does this change offset an “end of the world!!!!11!” rise in temperatures, or a saner 1-1.2 degree rise?
Looks to me as if they are focusing in on some of Willis Eschenbach’s thoughts on the matter with his musings on the thermostat to regulate earth’s temperature within manageable upper and lower limits.
Is there a historical record / index for forbush activity? I’d like to look at frequency and intensity of decades.
Bill, (can I call you Bill?)
thank you for your very insightful post, I enjoyed all of the papers you provided. I especially appreciate the Siroko et. al. and his analysis of LEAP in german lake sediment values. The LEAP event is especially devastating when one compares the much larger latent heat (figure 3) and meridional overturning heat transport (figures 7 and 8) rates that occurred during the late Eemian (see reference paper here:
You are very correct. in absence of land-use changes and early rice agriculture, we would have experience a glacial event about 2,000 years ago. What would have happened would be analogous to the Younger Dryas Cooling event that involved a cessation of the AMOC and, coupled with a massive increase in dry, cold windstorms and associated glacial dust aerosol ejection which would produce a global dimming, CO2 reduction and Laurentide reformation.
This younger dryas cooling event is recognized as the cause of the magaflora and Megafauna extinction in north America (as well as the destruction of the Clovis, a geographically distributed Neolithic culture with high tool, shelter and fire capabilities — perhaps the most resilient and virile lifeform that this planet has ever produced).
It should be noted here that the carbon cycle that eventually drove the return to the ice age in previous cycles involved significantly larger natural CO2 sequestration mechanisms than currently exist. The northern hemisphere boreal evergreen forests stretched well into the arctic circle during the late Eemian and ocean biomass was likely 300% higher than we have today. These two CO2 removal mechanisms are currently operating signficantly below the late Eemian potential (with the Amazonian basin in the process of current collapse and a possible compensation with warming tundra, yet to be seen).
6,500 years ago the trend of CO2 reduction stabilized at 255 ppm. If the rate of decline had continued it would be closer to 240 ppm today. Methane was dropping to 500 ppb 4,500 years ago and would be closer to 450 ppb today if Holocene anthropogenic changes did not occur. Today CO2 is at 400ppm and on its way to 650ppm, Methane is around 1800ppb and on its way to 2400ppb.
Given these factors, your paper (Siroko et. al) indicates that a sudden increase in the atlantic gyre and a drying/cooling event in northern europe would herald the abrupt end of the interglacial (if there was not anthropogenic factors in our current climate).
However, the amount of additional forcing that has been added to the climate due to greenhouse gasses has made paleoclimate comparisons moot. For example, the analysis of CO2 sensitivity using the shifts from glacial maximum to glacial minimum for the last 800kyr shows that the CO2 response mechanism explodes during the interglacial period. doi:10.1038/nature11574.
since our anthropocene activities have, so far, prevented the resurgence into a new ice age, and done so using such a pitiful amount of new GHG addition (and changes in CO2 sequestration abilities), the increase of projected industrial age CO2 will necessarily lead to a runaway warming that is more closely aligned with the last time that CO2 and methane concentrations were this high, wayyyyy back to MIS-31 (in the absence of massive global geoengineering effort)
The paleoenvironmental modification recorded at Site 1090 during MIS 31 iswell consistent with evidence of an extreme warming event from Antarctic nearshore deposits during MIS 31 (Scherer et al., 2003, 2008), which may have promoted a possible collapse of the Western Antarctic Ice Sheet, with the recognition of a warming event occurring at about 1 Ma in the East
Antarctica (Teitler et al., 2007; Villa et al., 2008) and of a southward displacement of the Polar Front at ODP Site 704 (Froelich et al., 1991) and 1094 (Flores and Sierro, 2007). These evidence suggest that this distinct warm event is likely the result of a modification in the
poleward heat transport and/or polar amplification of an orbital induced climate event, which may have affected both the stability of the Antarctic ice sheet and the global thermohaline circulation.
In the end, when looking at the potential for increased climate sensitivity above the current (conservative) estimates provided by the IPCC (+4C per doubling CO2 instead of 2.5C) and their (culpable) unwillingness to explore the very real carbon cycle feedbacks that are currently unfolding, the potential for a resurgence into a new glacial event, as though the industrial age will have no effect on the climate, is, in my view, extremely “magical thinking”.
. . .Unless you have some better information about long-term geoengineering potential activities and how they may be used to prevent a runaway climate event similar to the P-Tr “great dying”.
James Hansen produced the best comprehensive analysis of this information to date: review it here
please pay specific attention to figure 2 that compares total forcing and temperature changes today and how it compares with the same values during the previous 800kyr.
The hamster dance.
If Alvin and the Chipmunks ever entered The Twilight Zone…… 😎
george e. smith:
If you read Ellsaesser’s entire article, not just the abstract, the inescapable impression arises that NO ONE really knows. That was the point of my comment! To the extent that near-tropopausal temperatures are incoherent with their near-surface counterparts and the stratosphere is highly transparent to OLR, I suspect that the present authors’ speculations upon such linkage are largely unfounded.
Who cares what the war criminals say? B. D. S.