Antarctica Melting 3x Faster Than We Thought

[Voodoo_Child906]

My understanding of the anthropomorphic global warming theory is that human burning of fossil fuels is increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide and causing unprecedented increases in temperature by a greenhouse effect.

My understanding of Milankovitch cycles is that the Earth's temperature is affected by its relationship with the sun in about a 100,000 year cycle. All of human civilization has existed in a 10,000 to 20,000 year interglacial warm period of this 100,000 cycle. The melting of polar ice looks less impressive on a background of the entirety of Canada being under snow and ice year round during the 80,000-90,000 cold period (evidenced by such glacial river valleys in places I have lived such as Edmonton and Toronto).

So unprecedented warming has to be examined on a background of what is usual for the stage we are at in the Milankovitch cycle. So where do we get carbon dioxide and temperature data for Milankovitch cycles? From ice cores (and also sediment layers). Technically, you could also look at tree ring data that has been correlated with ice core data, but you cannot look at surface temperature data (or even satellite temperature data) because these data do not go back very far and do not correlate with proxies such as tree ring data (the so called "divergence problem"). The problem of the hockey stick graph is that it was tacking on modern temperature data of the past 100 years to a 1000 years of proxy data, an apples to oranges comparison (The blade of the graph disappears with proxy data used all through).

Here's the thing: There is ice core data that goes back a long way and that also extends into the industrial age. It's called the Law Dome ice core. People even use the carbon dioxide data from this very core to show an unprecendented increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.
https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/publication/ice-cores-and-climate-change/

Spoiler

https://www.bas.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/002.jpg

But what has not been published to my knowledge is the temperature data from that same ice core (as has been done for other ice cores, such as the Volstok ice core, from which we derive Milankovitch cycles also known as real climate science).

Spoiler

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...pg/1280px-Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg

In the spoiler image above, you can see that the temperature proxy from ice cores is called delta-18O, and you can read about how it is derived here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Δ18O
https://globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/labs/Lab10_Vostok/Vostok.htm

So I think the most compelling evidence for an unprecedented increase in global temperature is to be found in the delta-18O of the Law Dome ice core. If the carbon dioxide data is good enough from that ice core then surely the best temperature data to correlate with this carbon dioxide data must come from the same ice core.

What do you think?

Great post, first note though is that you keep using the word 'unprecedented' which I don't agree with, I believe the earth has warmed and cooled in the past at much greater rates than what we are seeing now, but I digress. I think two separate positions need to be established in order to discuss this topic:

1) Human influence on the earth' s CO2 levels

Below is the graph plotted by the NOAA using ice core data which shows an obvious anomalous spike around the time period of the west's industrialization. For me the correlation is obvious and I believe it would be more than reasonable to conclude causation. Is this something you would agree with?

Spoiler

2) If this influence has effected global temperature rise

This will be a little more difficult to ascertain as I do not believe CO2 levels and temperature are always directly correlated. Other factors such as solar activity and geological activity do play a part in temperature fluctuation. What we do know is that CO2 is a green house gas and modern measurements with satellite data (for however brief a period) have so far corroborated the hypothesis. If one wants to say that a larger set of direct measurements is needed I'll grant that but I believe It is a reasonable to conclude that given that data that we have, AGW is real.

 

[gatchaman]

Great post, first note though is that you keep using the word 'unprecedented' which I don't agree with, I believe the earth has warmed and cooled in the past at much greater rates than what we are seeing now, but I digress. I think two separate positions need to be established in order to discuss this topic:

1) Human influence on the earth' s CO2 levels

Below is the graph plotted by the NOAA using ice core data which shows an obvious anomalous spike around the time period of the west's industrialization. For me the correlation is obvious and I believe it would be more than reasonable to conclude causation. Is this something you would agree with?

Spoiler

2) If this influence has effected global temperature rise

This will be a little more difficult to ascertain as I do not believe CO2 levels and temperature are always directly correlated. Other factors such as solar activity and geological activity do play a part in temperature fluctuation. What we do know is that CO2 is a green house gas and modern measurements with satellite data (for however brief a period) have so far corroborated the hypothesis. If one wants to say that a larger set of direct measurements is needed I'll grant that but I believe It is a reasonable to conclude that given that data that we have, AGW is real.

I have shown you similar ice core carbon dioxide data from the Law Dome ice core in the previous post of mine that you have quoted, and yes, I am willing to call that increase anthropocentric until someone shows me a reason to call it otherwise.

The problem is that you want to use temperature data that cannot be replicated absent a time machine. The carbon dioxide increase is called unprecedented on a timeline of thousands of years and the corresponding temperature data for that timeline, in the form of delta-18O, is available from the very same Law Dome ice core. Unlike satellite and surface temperature, the delta-18O measurement is replicable, and the data obviously exists. Why isn't it published?

 

[unimackpass]

Ridiculous regulations that come out of government studies doesn't help the cause. A lot of it is image and not helpful in any real sense but people will follow and swallow if it's taged with saving the planet.
Tier 4 engines are a nightmare, burn more fuel, require scrubbers, super expensive, difficult to work on and take up more space.
They hardly reduce emissions per gallon but it's a feel good thing so that's all that counts. I mean we have to do something right?

Ok here is a update on the affect of feelgood stupid regulations that people want more of so they can believe something is being done to save the planet.
We're having generator problems on our vessel and even though we have three we could possibly be down to one in the near future. Been calling around the country for prices to get shipped out asap because of the nature of this charter.
A John Deer 65kw with a tier4 engine is $40,000. The exact same kw genset with a John Deer tier3 engine is $20,000. The teer4 burns more fuel because it has to run scrubbers and a bunch of other crap but burns a tiny bit cleaner. The tier3 you can only buy if you claim it as a standby emergency generator.
So there you go twice the money for very little results.
A friend repowerd his vessel with twin cats and was able to find a loophole to not use tier4 engines otherwise it was to cost prohibitive. It still cost him $550,000 so basically it would have been a million otherwise.
This whole feasco is having a negative impact on a lot of industries
with very small real world benefits.
People are rightly concerned that big government regulation concerning climate change is going to be just one more big government fiasco.

 

[Bamboozled]

What makes this prospect terrifying for me is that we don't know enough about how we should expect this to affect the ocean-to-human food chain- where is the tipping point? Do we lose species slowly, or very suddenly? The sea level rise we can deal with- it will come at a tremendous cost in terms of lives labor and money, but we will deal with it. But we won't deal with the loss of fish. We'll just die by the billion.

How do we fix it when we acknowledge it's a problem?

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

I have shown you similar ice core carbon dioxide data from the Law Dome ice core in the previous post of mine that you have quoted, and yes, I am willing to call that increase anthropocentric until someone shows me a reason to call it otherwise.

The problem is that you want to use temperature data that cannot be replicated absent a time machine. The carbon dioxide increase is called unprecedented on a timeline of thousands of years and the corresponding temperature data for that timeline, in the form of delta-18O, is available from the very same Law Dome ice core. Unlike satellite and surface temperature, the delta-18O measurement is replicable, and the data obviously exists. Why isn't it published?

No I don't have a time machine but surely there are ways to corroborate the temperatures. Do you believe that the spectromic analysis of the isotopic composition of ancient water molecules is flawed enough to be deemed unreliable?

 

[JonnyRingo84]

First, there is nothing that's going to magically happen to prevent sea level rise outside some revolutionary open source clean free energy model or a dynamic natural cooling event.

you're probably right. i would still argue that embracing more efficient energy is win win for everyone, though.

Regarding the underlined above, we don't have much data on human population size in the past outside of vague guesswork.

lol. we know that norte chico or the indus valley had far far far far far far fewer people than exist in areas at sea level today. that was my point.

We do now know that due to impossibly difficult to imagine climatic events that jerked the planet out of the last ice age around 9600 BC that we lost about half the amount of mammal species living on earth that weighed over 125 lbs. We don't know for sure how these events affected humans outside small details like the collapse of the Clovis culture, but it doesn't take much of a leap to realize we probably had major population collapses at this same time given what we know about the extinction of so many other animals during this time who had been fine and prosperous for millions of years prior.

alright.

Look into meltwater pulse 1a and 1b. What we are going through in modern time is an inconvenience.

no. simply because of the numbers of people being displaced, it is not an inconvenience. where will 5 million+ displaced people in bangladesh go? dhaka? its already one of the more densely populated areas on earth. who's resources will these seek to take a share in?

i keep using bangladesh because it is one of the more dramatic examples, but this type of thing is playing out in many low lying densely populated areas today. by your own admission, there is no reason to suspect that such events will decrease in their frequency. its well within plausibility to see this either causing, or impacting major conflicts of the future.

Yes, it sucks for people with no resources who live on the coasts of the world...to say the least.

"sucks" for them. i suppose thats our main point of contention. i just empathize with those people a little more than you do, maybe.

 

[andnowweknow]

you're probably right. i would still argue that embracing more efficient energy is win win for everyone, though.



lol. we know that norte chico or the indus valley had far far far far far far fewer people than exist in areas at sea level today. that was my point.



alright.



no. simply because of the numbers of people being displaced, it is not an inconvenience. where will 5 million+ displaced people in bangladesh go? dhaka? its already one of the more densely populated areas on earth. who's resources will these seek to take a share in?

i keep using bangladesh because it is one of the more dramatic examples, but this type of thing is playing out in many low lying densely populated areas today. by your own admission, there is no reason to suspect that such events will decrease in their frequency. its well within plausibility to see this either causing, or impacting major conflicts of the future.



"sucks" for them. i suppose thats our main point of contention. i just empathize with those people a little more than you do, maybe.

Empathy isn't going to change this scientific reality. I have plenty of empathy for anyone who shares the human condition. But concentrating on adapting and using this as an opportunity to put into perspective the reality that we aren't owed a stable climate and rather are lucky to have had one (and continue to) would be more prudent than demonizing the human race...

The history of our planet is an affirmation that the status quo will inevitably be torn to shreds. And I'm not referring to scales of millions of years.

Not that we can't walk and chew gum at the same time, but we are spending far to much of our energy and treasure on climate debates when there are far more dire concerns that go far deeper than a bunch of humans having to move over the next hundred years.

 

[gatchaman]

No I don't have a time machine but surely there are ways to corroborate the temperatures. Do you believe that the spectromic analysis of the isotopic composition of ancient water molecules is flawed enough to be deemed unreliable?

If by the isotopic composition of ancient water, you are referring to delta-18O, then I consider it more reliable than surface and satellite temperature because ice core data is corroborated by sediment data and tree ring data (all of which are replicable), while non-replicable modern temperature data (from surface thermometers and satellites) suffer from the "divergence problem".

And the very best data, the delta-18O from the Law Dome ice core is available. If the delta-18O of the Volstok ice core is good enough to derive the climactic record from which we support Milankovitch cycles then surely the delta-18O from the Law Dome ice core is good enough for us to look at modern temperatures. Both the carbon dioxide and the delta-18O data are published for the Volstok ice core. It is dishonest to present the carbon dioxide data from the Law Dome ice core as evidence of unprecedented atmospheric carbon dioxide increase while suppressing the delta-18O data (which would allow a replicable look at the contemporaneous temperatures) from the same source.

You asked me what it would take to "prove" AGW to you, and I have answered. What I ask is available data. It is not an unreasonable request.

Cliffs in meme form:

Spoiler

via Imgflip Meme Generator

 

[IGIT]

you're probably right. i would still argue that embracing more efficient energy is win win for everyone, though.

hiya JonnyRingo84,

that's where i think the debate should stop - because the rest gets too heated.

we don't have to talk about AGW...or polar bears stranded on ice floes...or Al Gore. its too polarizing. and its really not necessary, i figure.

less methane in the air...less smog...less mercury...not having to wear a facemask...clean water, stuff you can swim and fish in...fisheries that don't collapse, but thrive...the massive bounty of high paying jobs that are there for the taking in renewable energy....etc...

these are things folks can agree on. why bother with AGW? its a bridge too far and muddies the dialogue.

- IGIT

 

[irish_thug]

Antarctica? I think you mean. Ice ring that surrounds the earth and keeps everything from spilling out into space.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

If by the isotopic composition of ancient water, you are referring to delta-18O, then I consider it more reliable than surface and satellite temperature because ice core data is corroborated by sediment data and tree ring data (all of which are replicable), while non-replicable modern temperature data (from surface thermometers and satellites) suffer from the "divergence problem".

And the very best data, the delta-18O from the Law Dome ice core is available. If the delta-18O of the Volstok ice core is good enough to derive the climactic record from which we support Milankovitch cycles then surely the delta-18O from the Law Dome ice core is good enough for us to look at modern temperatures. Both the carbon dioxide and the delta-18O data are published for the Volstok ice core. It is dishonest to present the carbon dioxide data from the Law Dome ice core as evidence of unprecedented atmospheric carbon dioxide increase while suppressing the delta-18O data (which would allow a replicable look at the contemporaneous temperatures) from the same source.

You asked me what it would take to "prove" AGW to you, and I have answered. What I ask is available data. It is not an unreasonable request.

I did misunderstand you before, I just wanted to make sure I'm following you correctly here. You don't trust modern surface and satellite data measurements and won't believe the earth is actually warming till you see the delta-18O data?

 

[gatchaman]

I did misunderstand you before, I just wanted to make sure I'm following you correctly here. You don't trust modern surface and satellite data measurements and won't believe the earth is actually warming till you see the delta-18O data?

I believe the expression is: Trust but verify. But there is no way to verify satellite or thermometer data absent a time machine. The existence of the "divergence problem" (the lack of correlation of the proxies) casts doubt on the modern temperature data. Do I believe it is getting warmer? It may be warmer today than in 1860, but is it warmer than the 1930s dustbowl? I have my doubts. Data checkers in USA and New Zealand propose that the increase over dustbowl temperature levels comes from "adjustments" to the data.

There is better data. You yourself have posted the ice core data for an unprecedented carbon dioxide increase on a timeline of hundreds of thousands of years. There is temperature data to go with the carbon dioxide data in the form of delta-18O. Both carbon dioxide and delta-18O data are published for the Volstock core, which are essential to our understanding of the climactic record and Milankovitch cycles. The delta-18O is corroborated by other proxies, such as tree rings and sediments. The temperature data, in the form of delta-18O, contemporaneous to the carbon dioxide data, extending back over 1000 years all the way to forward to the industrial age is found in the Law Dome ice core.

What is going on is yet another version of the hockey stick graph. Data in favor of a certain interpretation is cherry picked. I have repeatedly explained my problem with satellite data and thermometer data (lack of replicability and the "divergence problem"). Now you answer: Why don't you want to see the ice core delta-18O data contemporaneous to the carbon dioxide data that you yourself have posted in this thread?

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

I believe the expression is: Trust but verify. But there is no way to verify satellite or thermometer data absent a time machine. The existence of the "divergence problem" (the lack of correlation of the proxies) casts doubt on the modern temperature data. Do I believe it is getting warmer? It may be warmer today than in 1860, but is it warmer than the 1930s dustbowl? I have my doubts. Data checkers in USA and New Zealand propose that the increase over dustbowl temperature levels comes from "adjustments" to the data.

There is better data. You yourself have posted the ice core data for an unprecedented carbon dioxide increase on a timeline of hundreds of thousands of years. There is temperature data to go with the carbon dioxide data in the form of delta-18O. Both carbon dioxide and delta-18O data are published for the Volstock core, which are essential to our understanding of the climactic record and Milankovitch cycles. The delta-18O is corroborated by other proxies, such as tree rings and sediments. The temperature data, in the form of delta-18O, contemporaneous to the carbon dioxide data, extending back over 1000 years all the way to forward to the industrial age is found in that very ice core.

What is going on is yet another version of the hockey stick graph. Data in favor of a certain interpretation is cherry picked. I have repeatedly explained my problem with satellite data and thermometer data (lack of replicability and the "divergence problem"). Now you answer: Why don't you want to see the ice core delta-18O data contemporaneous to the carbon dioxide data that you yourself have posted in this thread?

I don't recall ever saying that I don't want to see the isotope data.

 

[Armbars]

remove humans from the planet, its still melting. Climate change happens, humans or not. The speed at which we're contributing to it is an ongoing debate that lost because humans are greedy and don't care.

 

[Rational Poster]

remove humans from the planet, its still melting. Climate change happens, humans or not. The speed at which we're contributing to it is an ongoing debate that lost because humans are greedy and don't care.

This just isn't true.

 

[Armbars]

This just isn't true.

What isn't true?

The planet will always have major and minor climate shifts, ice melts, things get hot, then there will be another ice age
The rate at which WE contribute to it is debatable, my personal opinion is we've accelerated it by 25% roughly
But nothing will change, humans are greedy and don't care.

 

[BassAckwards]

this is a great thing; with all of the global warming happening, the soyboy snowflakes will melt along with the ice

 

[JonnyRingo84]

hiya JonnyRingo84,

that's where i think the debate should stop - because the rest gets too heated.

we don't have to talk about AGW...or polar bears stranded on ice floes...or Al Gore. its too polarizing. and its really not necessary, i figure.

less methane in the air...less smog...less mercury...not having to wear a facemask...clean water, stuff you can swim and fish in...fisheries that don't collapse, but thrive...the massive bounty of high paying jobs that are there for the taking in renewable energy....etc...

these are things folks can agree on. why bother with AGW? its a bridge too far and muddies the dialogue.

- IGIT

i totally agree. efficient energy is win win win. i dont think that we can totally transition as a country immediately. but we need to acknowledge that fossil fuels are F'ing dirty, and finite. this is not a partisan claim. if congress would do that, maybe a truly free market would emerge with regard to energy.

 

[JonnyRingo84]

I believe the expression is: Trust but verify. But there is no way to verify satellite or thermometer data absent a time machine. The existence of the "divergence problem" (the lack of correlation of the proxies) casts doubt on the modern temperature data. Do I believe it is getting warmer? It may be warmer today than in 1860, but is it warmer than the 1930s dustbowl? I have my doubts. Data checkers in USA and New Zealand propose that the increase over dustbowl temperature levels comes from "adjustments" to the data.

i actually dont know. but wasnt the dustbowl largely due to the advent of the sead drill, and mass settlement of the midwest? i dont think anyone would dispute that it was an unusually warm/dry period, but humans played a role in that disaster no?

There is better data. You yourself have posted the ice core data for an unprecedented carbon dioxide increase on a timeline of hundreds of thousands of years. There is temperature data to go with the carbon dioxide data in the form of delta-18O. Both carbon dioxide and delta-18O data are published for the Volstock core, which are essential to our understanding of the climactic record and Milankovitch cycles. The delta-18O is corroborated by other proxies, such as tree rings and sediments. The temperature data, in the form of delta-18O, contemporaneous to the carbon dioxide data, extending back over 1000 years all the way to forward to the industrial age is found in the Law Dome ice core.

What is going on is yet another version of the hockey stick graph. Data in favor of a certain interpretation is cherry picked. I have repeatedly explained my problem with satellite data and thermometer data (lack of replicability and the "divergence problem"). Now you answer: Why don't you want to see the ice core delta-18O data contemporaneous to the carbon dioxide data that you yourself have posted in this thread?

im not attacking you with this question. im genuinely curious. we're taking matter from the earth and turning it into gases. is there no consequence to this?

 

[gatchaman]

i actually dont know. but wasnt the dustbowl largely due to the advent of the sead drill, and mass settlement of the midwest? i dont think anyone would dispute that it was an unusually warm/dry period, but humans played a role in that disaster no?



im not attacking you with this question. im genuinely curious. we're taking matter from the earth and turning it into gases. is there no consequence to this?

The discussion of the dust bowl pertains to using ice core delta-18O for temperature data contemporaneous to ice core carbon dioxide versus using satellite and thermometer temperature data. To me, best agricultural methods for preserving top soil are irrelevant to that discussion.

In terms of burning fossil fuels. Human life could not survive in either an atmosphere of 0% carbon dioxide or 100% carbon dioxide. We have determined safe maximums for such things as lead in drinking water and ammonia in air. Are you proposing a safe maximum for carbon dioxide in the air? "Less" is a non-answer because we will become extinct in an atmosphere with 0% carbon dioxide.

Have you read my posts in their entirety: Do you understand the importance of publishing the delta-18O data from the Law Dome ice core?