• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ice sheets and dust

A quote from one of the source papers they linked:


Switching off the effect of the dust deposition on snow albedo leads to a rapid development of unrealistically large ice sheets, which cannot be melted even during periods of high CO2 concentration and summer insolation. This confirms our earlier speculation (Calov et al. 2005) about the importance of eolian dust in restriction of growth of the ice sheets and their rapid terminations

I completely agree. If the global average for a CO2 doubling is 3.71 W/m^2, then it is very weak in cold climates of subzero temperatures. Not enough to affect the subzero ice. Dust and soot however are capable of more than doubling the solar energy absorbed by the changing albedo.

If I have time, I will actually read some of the referenced papers. However, I already know, without doubt, that fallen aerosols play a very large role in ice melt.
 
The open source paper was discussed on WUWT in June.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/06...ges-via-precession-and-dust-albedo-feedbacks/

A couple of regular 'skeptic', posters - see posts by Willis and Javier - pointed out some major flaws.

One quote from Ellis I found funny was this: "The ancient Egyptians and Greeks knew of precession and called it the Great Year, because it gives warm and cool seasons over its approximate 23,000-year cycle." Is he serious? He thinks they noticed 23,000 yr cycles of warm and cool seasons?

Ralph Ellis's other books and articles on his website look rather interesting:

Edfu - The Ralph Ellis Website

Edfu - The Ralph Ellis Website

The Grail Cypher
The King Jesus trilogy
Eden in Eqypt
Mary Magdalene, Princess of Orange
Tempest & Exodus

"Ralph has made a detour into geology and climatology over the last couple of months..."

So Ralph is now into Climastrology myths as well as Jesus and King Arthur myths?


I don't think anyone disputes that dust has an affect on the albedo of ice, but claiming it's the major driver of ice ages? Hmmm.. that seems more in the realm of fiction. The "anything other than CO2" climate truthers will probably leap on it and believe it without question.
 
Last edited:
Who cares if it's soot or volcanic ash, something is darkening the skies since the 70's and it's not good.
 
Who cares if it's soot or volcanic ash, something is darkening the skies since the 70's and it's not good.
The darkening of the skies is ever changing. We have variable volcanic events and dust the winds carry from deserts and drought. Our impact became notable during WWII, and increased into the 70's. We lowered the levels of aerosols considerably in the late 70's on until Asia started to build countless coal fired power plants in the 90's.
 
The darkening of the skies is ever changing. We have variable volcanic events and dust the winds carry from deserts and drought. Our impact became notable during WWII, and increased into the 70's. We lowered the levels of aerosols considerably in the late 70's on until Asia started to build countless coal fired power plants in the 90's.

We haven't done enough on the human impact level.
 
We haven't done enough on the human impact level.

True. The first would countries have taken huge steps. We need the emerging nations to clean up their act to our standards. Until then, we would just be throwing money away trying to reduce our emissions any farther, and CO2 isn't the boogeyman so many think it is. The best we first world nations can do now is work on mitigating our footprint on land. Sure, we still have some outdated power facilities, but they are already slated for renovation or decommissioning.
 
Nobody disputes that greenhouse gases have provided the primary feedback effect that has driven the large changes in temperature that have characterised the Earth's history. However, something else must have set the ball rolling on each occasion (As the deniers are happy to point out, there were no SUVs in prehistory!). This initial trigger has generally been assumed to have been small changes in solar insolation due to orbital cycles, but the dust theory also makes a lot of sense. Modern day changes in ice albedo due to soot deposition may possibly be contributing to rising temperatures, but there is no dispute that human greenhouse gas emissions are the main driver.
 
Nobody disputes that greenhouse gases have provided the primary feedback effect that has driven the large changes in temperature that have characterised the Earth's history. However, something else must have set the ball rolling on each occasion (As the deniers are happy to point out, there were no SUVs in prehistory!). This initial trigger has generally been assumed to have been small changes in solar insolation due to orbital cycles, but the dust theory also makes a lot of sense. Modern day changes in ice albedo due to soot deposition may possibly be contributing to rising temperatures, but there is no dispute that human greenhouse gas emissions are the main driver.

No, I will dispute CO2 as the main drivers at least for changes over the last few hundred years.

Yes, it causes more warming. Just not as much as the IPCC et. al. claims. I would class it as the 3rd at best impact of the warming we have seen.
 
Perusing denier blogs again, huh?
It you choose to call Judith Curry a denier, perhaps you should answer what you think she is denying also?
Does she disagree with the orthodoxy of the church of AGW? If so, that is disagreement, and skepticism, not denial.
 
A quote from one of the source papers they linked:


Switching off the effect of the dust deposition on snow albedo leads to a rapid development of unrealistically large ice sheets, which cannot be melted even during periods of high CO2 concentration and summer insolation. This confirms our earlier speculation (Calov et al. 2005) about the importance of eolian dust in restriction of growth of the ice sheets and their rapid terminations

I completely agree. If the global average for a CO2 doubling is 3.71 W/m^2, then it is very weak in cold climates of subzero temperatures. Not enough to affect the subzero ice. Dust and soot however are capable of more than doubling the solar energy absorbed by the changing albedo.

If I have time, I will actually read some of the referenced papers. However, I already know, without doubt, that fallen aerosols play a very large role in ice melt.

The figures to look at are the capacity for ice to absorb heat energy from sunshine either clean or dusty or sooty.

Given that Greenland has 1m of snowfall (w.e.) a year there would have to be a lot of dirt in the snow for it to have an effect significant compared to the 1m of snow.

If you find these numbers please link to them.
 
Nobody disputes that greenhouse gases have provided the primary feedback effect that has driven the large changes in temperature that have characterised the Earth's history. However, something else must have set the ball rolling on each occasion (As the deniers are happy to point out, there were no SUVs in prehistory!). This initial trigger has generally been assumed to have been small changes in solar insolation due to orbital cycles, but the dust theory also makes a lot of sense. Modern day changes in ice albedo due to soot deposition may possibly be contributing to rising temperatures, but there is no dispute that human greenhouse gas emissions are the main driver.

What percentage do you think CO2 is responsible for?
 
It you choose to call Judith Curry a denier, perhaps you should answer what you think she is denying also?
Does she disagree with the orthodoxy of the church of AGW? If so, that is disagreement, and skepticism, not denial.

What? You mean she disagrees with the consensus, even though you argued in another thread that there is no consensus?
 
What? You mean she disagrees with the consensus, even though you argued in another thread that there is no consensus?

I'll explain;

You mean she disagrees with the consensus[SUP]TM[/SUP], even though you argued in another thread that there is no consensus?
 
What? You mean she disagrees with the consensus, even though you argued in another thread that there is no consensus?
Actually you would have to cite where I said there was no consensus.
What I likely said and still agree with, is that the consensus is not for the full suite of the IPCC warming,
but rather that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Based on NASA definition of the consensus,
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.
This is not a high bar to step over, and would place Judith Curry, and my self as part of the consensus.
 
Actually you would have to cite where I said there was no consensus.
What I likely said and still agree with, is that the consensus is not for the full suite of the IPCC warming,
but rather that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Based on NASA definition of the consensus,
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

This is not a high bar to step over, and would place Judith Curry, and my self as part of the consensus.

The consensus, of course, is that the IPCC tenets are generally correct, and AGW is a problem that needs to be addressed urgently, not the pretend consensus that exists in your mind.

From your own link:
U.S. National Academy of Sciences:
"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
 
The figures to look at are the capacity for ice to absorb heat energy from sunshine either clean or dusty or sooty.

Given that Greenland has 1m of snowfall (w.e.) a year there would have to be a lot of dirt in the snow for it to have an effect significant compared to the 1m of snow.

If you find these numbers please link to them.

Various studies have clean snow albedo generally around 0.85 to 0.9, or more, and changing to as low as 0.5 with soot and/or dust. That is a factor of three times or more radiative absorption from getting dirty. I fine layer that diminishes the albedo to 0.7 is invisible except under a microscope or other equipment measuring reflectivity.

How about these:

For just 10 ppb on the surface:


We find evidence that black soot aerosols deposited on Tibetan glaciers have been a significant contributing factor to observed rapid glacier retreat. Reduced black soot emissions, in addition to reduced greenhouse gases, may be required to avoid demise of Himalayan glaciers and retain the benefits of glaciers for seasonal fresh water supplies.


BC concentrations of 10 ng g−1 significantly alter the albedo (reflectivity) of a thick snow layer. The visible albedo of deep fresh snow, about 0.9–0.97, is decreased by 0.01–0.04 by a BC amount of 10 ng g−1 (16, 18), thus increasing absorption (1 minus albedo) of visible radiation by 10–100%, depending on the size and shape of snow crystals and on whether the soot is incorporated within snow crystals or externally mixed


The impact of albedo change is magnified in the spring, at the start of the melt season, because it allows melt to begin earlier. Then, as melting snow tends to retain some aerosols, the surface concentration of black soot increases, and BC becomes even more effective at increasing melt of snow and ice.

Black soot and the survival of Tibetan glaciers


BC has been implicated in previous studies as
potentially disrupting Arctic climate. Clarke and Noone
[1985] found that snow albedos are reduced by 1–3% in
fresh snow and by another factor of 3 as the snow ages and
the BC becomes more concentrated.

Distant origins of Arctic black carbon: A Goddard Institute for Space Studies ModelE experiment
This is probably another reason we see a net ice loss in Antarctica and Greenland, but in the arctic:


BC deposition in Greenland is about 10 times greater than in Antarctica and 10 times less than in Tibet.


In addition to absorbing radiation when lofted in the
atmosphere, BC also causes surface warming when deposited
on snow and ice surfaces [Flanner et al., 2007; Hansen and
Nazarenko, 2004]. Sensitive regions (e.g., the Arctic and
the Himalayas) are particularly vulnerable to warming due
to the snow albedo effect [Kopacz et al., 2011; McConnell,
2010], which tends to enhance snow and ice melting due to
the absorption caused by the increased BC deposition.

Historical and future black carbon deposition on the three ice caps: Ice core measurements and model simulations from 1850 to 2100

I have seen more dramatic numbers than these in other studies, but don't recall the keywords I need to find the studies.

Whether from the sun, or forcing from greenhouse gasses, the snow is warming twice as fast or more from the albedo changes cause by soot.
 
The consensus, of course, is that the IPCC tenets are generally correct, and AGW is a problem that needs to be addressed urgently, not the pretend consensus that exists in your mind.

From your own link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Did you notice the subtle difference between NASA's statement, and the statements of others.
"Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
vs "The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."
Nasa's statement is how a Scientist would say something, the other is how a politician would.
Even Cook describes the consensus this way,
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience
Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
Humans are causing global warming! Yep, I am quite sure we are causing some if not most of the warming.
Even the outrageously biased Skeptical Science says
The 97% consensus on global warming
1
) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere between 90% and 100%
that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists.
So when you talk consensus, you should perhaps qualify what they are consenting to!
 
Did you notice the subtle difference between NASA's statement, and the statements of others.
"Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
vs "The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."
Nasa's statement is how a Scientist would say something, the other is how a politician would.
Even Cook describes the consensus this way,
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

Humans are causing global warming! Yep, I am quite sure we are causing some if not most of the warming.
Even the outrageously biased Skeptical Science says
The 97% consensus on global warming
1
So when you talk consensus, you should perhaps qualify what they are consenting to!

Given that virtually every major scientific organization on the planet has issued a statement that says AGW is a problem and needs to be addressed by reducing fossil fuel use, I find your semantics a bit tiresome.

But then again, deniers gonna deny.
 
Given that virtually every major scientific organization on the planet has issued a statement that says AGW is a problem and needs to be addressed by reducing fossil fuel use, I find your semantics a bit tiresome.

But then again, deniers gonna deny.
So you have a citation of a Peer reviewed paper describing this consensus?
Not that it really matters, because the data still does not support the mid to upper ranges of the IPCC
projection, and the Low end is of little concern.
 
So when you talk consensus, you should perhaps qualify what they are consenting to!

They have a LOSU when it comes to such matters.

LOSU: level of scientific understanding
 
Back
Top Bottom