Climate pledges bound to breach key warming target: scientists
June 11, 2009
A NASA image of the planet Earth. Pledges currently on the table at the UN climate talks will doom Earth to a warming of more than two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), a figure that has been widely endorsed as a safe limit, scientists said on Thursday.
Pledges currently on the table at the UN climate talks will doom Earth to a warming of more than two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), a figure that has been widely endorsed as a safe limit, scientists said on Thursday.
Warming "is virtually certain to exceed 2 C" (3.6 F) compared to pre-industrial times, said their assessment of national positions.
The study was published online by the British science journal Nature as a new 12-day round of negotiations was in its penultimate day.
There is no scientific consensus on what constitutes a safe level of warming.
However, the 2 C (3.6 F) goal has been described by the UN's Nobel-winning panel of climate experts as the only practical option for inflicting the least damage to Earth's climate system.
The figure lies at the heart of efforts to craft a new pact in Copenhagen in December for tackling climate change in decades to come.
It has been enshrined as an objective by more than 100 countries, including the 27 nations of the European Union (EU).
The new analysis looks at chances of hitting the 2 C (3.6 F) target, based on the calculation that developed countries would cut their emissions of heat-trapping gases by 25-40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, and to 50-80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
Developing countries, for their part, would have to reduce their emissions by between 15 and 30 percent by 2020 compared with a "business-as-usual" trend.
"Business as usual" means a rise in emissions by 2020 that would occur through expected economic growth, but without any measures to mitigate the gas.
On both counts, though, the news is dire.
Promises or discernible actions sketched so far at the talks show the world is on track for smashing the 2 C (3.6 F) ceiling, the study said.
Rich countries' positions amount to cuts "in the range of eight to 14 percent" by 2020 over 1990, rising to 57-63 percent by 2050 over 1990 "if current positions were faithfully implemented," it said.
Developing countries would be on track for a reduction of four percent by 2020 compared with business as usual.
As a result, global industrial emissions would be roughly double 1990 levels by 2050.
This pathway "has virtually no chance of limiting warming to 2 C" (3.6 F), said the study, authored by a team from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impacts Research in Germany.
In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicted warming of 1.1-6.4 C (1.98-11.52 F) by 2100 compared to 1980-99 levels.
Heatwaves, rainstorms, tropical cyclones and surges in sea level were among the events expected to become more frequent, more widespread or more intense, depending on the temperature rise.
That report sketched three scenarios for policymakers, although none was a recommendation.
The most ambitious would limit carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations in the atmosphere to 450 parts per million (ppm), equivalent to a roughly 2 C (3.6 F) warming.
Before the Industrial Revolution, CO2 concentrations were 280 ppm; in 2007, they were nearly 385 ppm.
To reach 450 ppm would require emissions cuts of 25-40 percent by industrialised countries by 2020 over 1990 and by 80-95 percent by 2050. There would have to be a "substantial" deviation from business-as-usual by developing countries, the IPCC said, without giving a figure.
Reducing emissions has become a fiercely-contested issue because of the cost of easing use of oil, gas and coal, the cheap and abundant "fossil" fuels that meet most of the world's energy needs.
Pressure is rising for an early fix because temperatures have already risen by around 0.8 C (1.4 F), causing worrying glacier melt, snow loss and retreating permafrost.
On top of that, 0.6 C (1.1 F) has to be factored in from past emissions that have yet to have an effect because of the inertia of the climate system. This leaves very little room for further emissions.
(c) 2009 AFP
Apr 29, 2009 |
not rated yet |
0
Science has been misused for political purposes by those promoting the illusion that Earth's climate is immune from cyclic changes in Earth's heat source -the Sun.
See: "EARTH'S HEAT SOURCE - THE SUN", Energy and Environment [SPECIAL ISSUE: Natural drivers of weather and climate] volume 20, pp. 131-144 (2009)
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0704
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://myprofile....anuelo09
DOOMED!!!!!!! WE'RE DOOMED!!!!! Reminds me of the crazy guy on the B movie "Hysterical" who rides around on his bike telling everyone they're dooooomed...
System with a feedback (as earth sure is) usually have states of equilibrium which are not easy to get out of,but it is not impossible.The worst part is that once you cross a certain tipping point it is very difficult to get it right again.
I think it was on this very webpage that I read about how if temperatures rised above a certain points the forests would start releasing the C02 they had trapped earlier to the atmosphere. That would certainly mean that you are screwed.
Even if your head happens to be comfortably set between your buttocks.
Plus,come on,it cant be THAT difficult not to destroy earth!
Politics has everything to do with it. I agree with you about the urgency, but we live in a system of democracies, so you can't just impose your own will by fiat. The people must be convinced, and history has shown that this has always been a slow process. It can take decades or more to convince the common man of something scientists have long accepted (consider evolution, heliocentrism, and even the shape of the Earth!) Perhaps public acceptance is too slow under the circumstances, but you can't accelerate it by yelling and screaming.
But even most Republican US congressmen now concede that global warming is real. And most either concede that humans are to blame or are staying very quiet on that question (which could mean they privately agree but are worried about losing votes.) The tide has turned, and action is happening quickly at the top. Maybe it's not quick enough, but it's as quick as we're gonna get. And even if global warming does cause a global economic depression for a century or two, then perhaps we'll come out the other side wiser for the experience.
First there was the scientific consensus, and then the politicians were convinced by the science. But when *Exxon* jumps on board, then you really know the game is over. There will always be a few holdouts of course (and they will tend to frequent these boards), but the world as a whole is moving past the debate phase and into the action phase.
We are now on a cooling trend for the last four years. But, even if we had temperatures rise back to the levels seen and reported during the MWP I fail to see how it would harm the planet now when it did not do so back then?
I have been monitoring CO2 levels for several years now and have been seen an increase of the gas with a decrease in temperatures in the northern hemisphere. Indeed, during the nighttime hours I have seen levels as high as just over 400 ppm CO2.
This paper, like the many others I have seen over time, is just so much more propaganda.
There is evidence to suggest that some of the more sudden past warmings *may* have caused mass extinctions. But you are correct that drastic warmings did occur naturally every so many million years, and also that there were plenty of plants and animals available to replace those that died as a result. In fact, warmer and wetter climates will cause life in general to flourish and spread better than ever.
Agreed. Plants will love it. The global human economy... well, not so much.
And you're quite right, of course, that ultimately life as it is now ("now" meaning "over the last few hundred million years) prefers lots of CO2 in the atmosphere and a comfortably warm world (within reason; no continent-spanning Permian deserts, please). But that's overall. Currently, we live during an unusually cold period in Life's history, and Earth life has evolved to do well under these rather chilly conditions. The distribution of flora and fauna, of entire ecosystems, of cities and civilizations, has been largely guided by OUR climate, as it is now--not the comfortable conditions of a lush Jurassic world. In a world that's warming quickly, the threat doesn't necessarily come from the change in temperature in and of itself, but the change in climates. In warming, our world may be transitioning to a more comfortable, lush, life-friendly place, but it'll only be more friendly to the future forms of life, and perhaps future civilizations, that will eventually develop. For us and our world, as it is, things are likely to be a tad miserable.
...Erm, sorry. On topic...Yeesh. Disappointing and worrying, this, but as Damon Hastings pointed out the shifts in the political atmosphere are happening about as quickly as they could be expected to happen--and maybe quicker. Over the coming years we'll see what happens, I suppose.
For what it's worth, here's a graph from Wikipedia's global warming article which includes the medieval warm period: http://en.wikiped...ison.png
It was maybe 0.4 C warmer than the subsequent "Little Ice Age" but still much cooler than now. Certainly nowhere close to a 5 C warming!
The Earth is warming, but it's not because of the paltry amount of CO2 that we are pumping into the atmosphere...and even if it is a few degrees of warming will be welcome...
I have no doubt that many plants and animals would benefit from global warming. They don't have cities on the coasts.
My point is that there won't be any runaway greenhouse effect like some morons say there will be with a few degrees of warming....
http://abcnews.go...=7697237&page=1
But then again. Al Gore's predictions turned out to be an underestimation. Let's hope these will at least be on target so proper preperations can be made.
The data in the graph was "smoothed" using various algorithms. One must also compare reports of those who lived during those times. Greenland's coastal regions were green (which is where that landmass actually got its name, contra myths of map mixups) and there was shepherding and crop planting in Greenland by Danish colonies during the MWP.
A rise of 5°C would melt the permafrost and allow for agriculture in Greenland once again. Pollen counts and examination of the pollens in the soil for the relevant time period would require the temperature to have been 5°C warmer than now, for many of these plants cannot survive cold weather.
I do not recall the location of the article or issue containing it in Nature I read about this but if I do recall I will certainly post the information.
The real question is whether man is doing it rather than a cycle that occurs. This question has not been satisfactorily answered in my opinion.
FYI. The Hockey Stick Graph has been thoroughly discredited.
http://www.reuter...4?rpc=64
http://www.usatod...ng_N.htm
the author clearly states that conditions that existed during a recorded historical episode involving one of the first settlers of Greenland in the late 900s indicate that the water temperature of Greenland's waters in the southwest had to "have been at least 4°C warmer than" at present. If the waters were warmer the land temperatures had to have been warmer as well.
In point of fact the remains of codfish have been found in abundance in middens of Greenland dating to the period of the MWP. These were caught off the shore of Greenland during the same time. Cod do not like the current temperatures around Greenland.
In addition, burials have been found in soil that now is permanently frozen. Temperatures would have had to have been 2-4°C warmer than at present to have allowed such deep-ground burials at that time.
Gore's graph is pseudoscience at its worst.
The warming during the PETM took place over a 20,000 year period.
http://en.wikiped..._Maximum
It is was a natural warming brought about by the Milankovitch cycles when they are all in their non-glacial stage. Now we are having a heat spike but it only took a few decades.
Question for global warming deniers:
Why would you trust research that is funded by oil companies?
http://abcnews.go...=2612021&page=1
http://www.exxposeexxon.com/
And how come not one single sceptic scientist will travel to the polls for some REAL research like these guys?
http://www.pbs.or...remeice/
You are making the suggestion that Viking days were warmer than now. Erik the Red settled in Greenland. But the temperatures you suggest would collapse the Greenland ice sheet. No more vikings in Greenland if that happened. There is an awful lot of ice there you know. It would have been a brutal death for them all.
I'm very sorry that you've missed out on all of the research done since 2002 in regards to global warming, Al Gore, Mann and Hansen, the Hockey stick, the IPCC summary for policymakers, and reality. I'm sorry you don't understand the differences between an ice sheet, ice cap, and ice shelf are. I'm sorry that no matter what discussion you engage in that you'll not be able to discern whether someone is telling you the truth or being a sophist.
But most of all, I'm sorry my tax dollars paid for your wasted education. Think for yourself, read the articles objectively, and bring yourself up to date on the topics of discussion. If your point of view remains on the proponent side of AGW, I'll look forward to our future informed debates.
Hansen has a hardon for fossil fuels. That's all there is to it. He always has and always will.
Since Nature is issued weekly it might be a little while until I find it. It was at least three years since I read it.
In the meantime you can read the publication I referenced above by H.H. Lamb. I'd borrow it from a library, however, as it is $230.00 a copy on Amazon.com. Or, you can buy it and enjoy all the charts and scientific data which is pretty much irrefutable. The book does not just cover the Norse colonies of Iceland and Greenland but a number of regions and refers to proxies and direct data combined throughout.
It speaks of several European nations and differences in temperatures throughout. You should look at the data for Norway and crop production in regions further north as well as data concerning wine-growing in Britain during the MWP and RWP.
As to the ice sheets collapsing, I have seen zero valid, unfalsifiable evidence for that or even for such occuring in the near future. Given that the historians who recorded various data for us did not describe the ice sheet melting, I would assume that such did not happen in spite of the warmer temperatures all across Europe. No melt; no gloom and doom.
But, the fact is there was no permafrost soil in southwestern Greenland during the time of the founding of the Norse colonies. This is proven by the fact that bodies were buried pretty deeply in soil that now is frozen solid!
Pollens of crops in Greenland show that they were being planted during those times.
Extensive deposits of codfish bones in middens during the same period proves that they were readily available close to Greenland during those times, showing that the waters were warmer.
A man was recorded as swimming in the water to get a sheep for a guest from an island that was over two miles away and back again. What is known for human endurance of cold water gives evidence that the waters were warmer during the MWP or the man would have died. Even highly trained swimmers likely would not survive swimming for such a long period of time near the Arctic circle today.
Thing is, do I believe what has been observed and recorded by old historians or do I believe Hansen's claptrap predictions that never get it right? I think I will go with H.H. Lamb and the ancient historical data.
I urge everyone here to read "heaven earth - Global warming: The missing science", by Ian Plimer, a renowned geologist.
As a scientist he has put in the hard yards and followed up studies on a variety of subjects related to historical temperature changes and his book contains references to 2311 studies (yes, you read it right - 2311!).
But if the hard work is too much for you simply consider this:
- Weather for a small part of any country cannot be reliably predicted for more than a few days into the future at present, because of the massively complex models that require too many factors to be followed, most of which we cannot, to-day, measure with any accuracy.
- So what chance is there of predicting climate change over the whole planet, a much more complex task?
Let the heat begin! :))
Brought to you by some who is paid to go to websites to try and debunk AGW. Even your fellow republicans are coming along when will you?
But then again their are people that still do not believe in evolution and believe that the bible is the word of GOD. So maybe their is no hope for you.
Please publish your data or STFU. oh right your not a scientist, your some internet nerd that tries to debunk AGW on the internet.
Any real scientist would be busy working on experiments and modeling and so forth. Your busy trying to debate anonymous people on the internet who side on the opinion of every reputable scientific organization in the world.
Again , please publish your theories and experiments to have them peer reviewed or go get a job.
Quit blubbering like a persecuted minority. The burden of proof is always on the ones with the biggest claims.
Why don't you explain to us the kind of social system you need to accomplish your fantastic climate control schemes? Until you can convince people like us to surrender our free societies and submit to your ecological Marxism, you're never going to make progress here.
Wow, I wonder when my check is comming. By the way I'm a conservative democrat, not a republican. You can look up my voter registration under the state of Massachusetts from 96-08 and in the state of NH in 08-09.
There are also people who have adopted a wholly different system of faith and push their moral and ethical views upon the populace despite the contrary views and lack of evidence. Hallowed are the Gori.
Argumentum ad hominem. Could you link your published papers John?
Which organizations would those be?
Nasa? http://www.msnbc....8964176/
UN IPCC?
What about the World Federation of Scientists?
What about the CCR?
Gee, guess not.
According to you I'm doing my job right now. That is unless you're just being facetous and disingenuous. As for peer review, the peer review process means nothing if you don't release your data and verification methods so the experiment or model can be independently reproduced. So your "peer-reviewed heroes" aren't peer reviewed.
By the way, feel free to hop on all of your accounts John and de-rank us all to oblivion. The truth can't be downranked Noein/John_Balls/Dragontide/MsDeeNyer
AGW has been validated by the IPCC (the most peer reviewed science research group on the planet) Also validated by NOAA, NASA, the WMO, the EPA, the British Antarctic Survey, The Nobel Prize Commitee, The National Ice & Snow Data Center and the US Supreme Court. What have YOU got?
Ask me any question you like about global warming. (anybody here)I will answer with peer reviewed research and post links to back it up. I have been researching it for 20 years. (for free on my own time as a hobby) I got into it because of a rock song (of all things) I heard in the 80s by a band named Testament. (the song "Greenhouse Effect" from the album "Practice What You Preach")
I know quite a bit about ice Val. How have my comments confused you into thinking I don't? The Greenland ice sheet is melting faster than expected.
http://www.scienc...2741.htm
The Wilknis ice shelf (in Antarctica) collapsed.
http://earthobser...ceSheet/
http://www.gearth...ogl.html
I know that there are some scientists that said we could have an ice age in the 70s. But to use that as an excuse to make the claim that AGW is a hoax is just retarded.
Prove to me that the volcanic activity is not in any way responsible for west Antartica's ice shelf collapse and in no way connected.
The eastern ice shelves and ice sheet remain stable and show no signs of volcanic activity at present.
By the way, the Wilkins ice shelf region re-iced less than a month later and is again becoming covered with snow. Well, at least that is what the above-cited article states at any rate. :)
Add to this the fact that glacial ice moves and breaks under the strain of added ice and snow. Could not this also have been partially to blame for the collapse? It is a fact that Antarctica's ice sheets have gained mass over the last few years and the southern hemisphere experienced a cooling trend. I am sure you read but ignored that data in your hobbyist experience.
BTW, the scientists in the 70s who said the earth was freezing because of fossil fuels also are the same ones who started the "fossil fuels are warming the earth" ball rolling, James Hansen being one of the most notable. :)
Wilkins Ice Shelf is now what's known as "first year ice" Even as the earth continues to warm, it will still get very cold at the poles during their winters. To the north, just about all the sea ice is also first year ice.
http://www.cbsnew...21.shtml
And yes there is seismic activity at the poles. Seismic activity is going to increase worldwide. As more ice melts, more water in the oceans puts more weight on the ocean floors giving magma less places to go.
http://www.worldw...ode/4388
What does a prediction in the 70s have to with this? Is Hansen the only debate you have against global warming? Your comparing apples & oranges here.
It has remained active ever since. It is this volcanic action that has accelerated ice flow in western Antarctica.
Notwithstanding portions of the entire continent have warmed, eastern Antarctica still remains stable. Of course, there is as of yet no evidence of volcanic action in eastern Antarctica as there is in the west of the continent.
You may also be interested in the fact that the Arctic regions also have at least three volcanic "black smokers" nearby. The Arctic ice also has nothing to do with seismic activity of any kind as it does not depress the crust like Antarctic and other landbased glaciers do.
He is by far not the only argument I have against an unproven hypothesis. Was there a warming trend across the globe? Certainly! This has been occuring since the end of the Little Ice Age. Did man cause it? I highly doubt it. I have seen zero unfalsifiable evidence for AGW and little that cannot be explained by something else occurring at the same time.
I also have yet to see adequate refutation of historical and other material that shows that Greenland and the European continent was not warmer than today's global temps 1,000 years ago. The evidence suggests that it was warmer by at least 4°C then than now.
I also have yet to see charts that have not been altered and "smoothed" by the IPCC and others of the Gori. Hallowed be the Gori!
http://www.cbsnew...69.shtml
Antarctica is the coldest place on Earth so the melting will not be as quick as up north. But it's still happening.
As to 1000 years ago, again the Inuit and other Arctic dwellers would have had to leave their land. (like their doing now)then change their lifestyle, then wait out an ice age then move back. There is no mention of this in their history. They have been there for 30,000 years. Now all of a sudden their life changes. And ice core samples tell the story about when it was warm and cold.
Plus if it were the Milankovitch cycles, the excess incoming heat (shortwave radiation) would be very easily detected.
One of the first founders swam across two miles in Greenland's frozen waters and did not die or even freeze. Highly trained humans can survive a two mile or more swim at water temperatures of 10°C but not less than that. Thus, the waters had to have been at minimum 4°C warmer than Greenland's present water temperature range of between 3°C and 6°C.
Again, take a gander at page 159 of H.H. Lamb's "Climate History and the Modern World" for starters to see the evidence for yourself. AGW proponents cannot afford to ignore this evidence but it is a certainty that they will continue to do so.
By the way, Innuit incursion was one of the main reasons for the demise of the Norse colonies of Greenland. They had migrated there and heavy conflict began. How versed are you in Innuit lore? Hmmmm???
I have said exactly nothing about Milankovitch Cycles. Again, take a look at H. H. Lambs work cited above. There is really good evidence that things were warmer all across Europe, Greenland and Iceland there. It is a starting point. Refute the evidence contained therein if you can.
You brought up 120,000 years ago. I explained what happened back then
http://www.iisd.o...tobs.htm
http://www.cbsnew...57.shtml
http://www.teache...tobserv/
You really think that no one who studies climate agrees with Lamb? That is the height of ignorance.
By the way, I NEVER said that all Innuit migrated so your point is moot. Please stop twisting my words like the IPCC twists the climate data.
Please read Lamb and refute his data. It is hard to refute archaeological facts and evidence, as well as supporting historical data. But, if you think you can refute it do so now.
You tried to make it sound like all the Inuit went to Greenland when you said:
Because twisting facts around all you sceptics know how to do.
I made no such claim or even attempt to suggest that all Innuit migrated to Greenland. That is your false interpretation of what I stated.
Twisting facts is what the IPCC clan do. I do nothing of the kind. REFUTE LAMB, if you can.
By the way, you might want to take a look over at another website containing another piece of data before continuing to spout off as you do.
Now ignoring the length of time, I want you to focus on the data regarding the temperature during that time.
Note that the data suggests that the temperatures were 5°C warmer at the time studied? Did you also notice that the ice cap in Greenland was a lot more stable than previously thought and that they survived temperatures 5°C higher than those at present?
If that is so, why then are climate scientists of the IPCC variety stating that the cap is going to completely melt off if the temperatures reach even 3.6°C higher than today??? Hmmm...???
Let's see your explanation for this discrepancy in what the data actually tells us as opposed to what the IPCC tells us the data tells them? Explain it now, please....
Once again, if the ice pack survived temperatures of 5°C warmer than now, what makes you think that temperatures of that high or lower are going to do it now? Tell me how such dire predictions of the IPCC and others of the AGW camp will be fulfilled? Just answer the question.
Just answer the question and try to follow the argument.
1. During the last interglacial period temperatures were 5°C higher than present.
2. The Greenland ice cap was preserved and did not melt down during this time.
3. Climate scientists are now saying that Greenland's ice cap is being threatened with complete collapse if the temperatures reach much higher than they are now.
Now, if the ice cap survived and did not melt down when the world was 5°C warmer during the laster interglacial period, preserving specimens that were frozen in the ice cap long before for us to examine and study today, what makes you think that an increase of temperatures lower than this or even at the level of 5°C will collapse the Greenland ice cap now?
Just answer the question and we can move from there. Or, is it just that you are having difficulty answering this very simple question because English is not your native language?
By the way, even if one cannot hide or fake global warming, one can decide whether or not man is responsible and one can also be misled into thinking that things are heating up uncontrollably in response to anomalies that occurred this last year in Europe.
Europe gets a blast of hot Sahara air from Africa due to anomalous conditions in the Atlantic and everyone suddenly thinks they are going to die from global warming... :)
http://www.ncdc.n...ial.html
and you can see how responsive and scientific he is from his demands for my to prove my facts while he unequivocally states his amateur hypothesis is settled science. He's a paid warmist advocate running several accounts on physorg. Speaking with him does nothing to further his understanding as he's more engrossed with money. Aren't you John_balls/Noein/MsDeeNyer/Dragontide?
You're an idiot I have one account and my theory is backed by peer reviewed studies. I don't have to get into the particulars of the science someone else has done that for me just like I don't have to go to great lengths to dissapprove quantum mechanics because their is a scientific community of experts doing this for me. You know groups like the following that support AGW:
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007
InterAcademy Council
Joint science academies' statement 2008
Joint science academies%u2019 statement 2001
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
Network of African Science Academies
National Research Council (US)
European Science Foundation
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Federation of American Scientists
World Meteorological Organization
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
International Union for Quaternary Research
American Quaternary Association
Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
International Union of Geological Sciences
European Geosciences Union
Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences
Geological Society of America
American Geophysical Union
American Astronomical Society
American Institute of Physics
American Physical Society
American Chemical Society
American Society for Microbiology
Institute of Biology (UK)
World Federation of Public Health Associations
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Public Health Association
American Medical Association
American Statistical Association
Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
Water Environment Federation
Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management
Federal Climate Change Science Program (US)
Royal Society of New Zealan
During the last interglacial period the temperatures of the globe were 5°C higher than today.
The Greenland Ice Cap was preserved and did not collapse, itself preserving specimens that were iced centuries before, preserving DNA well enough to identify the sources.
If the Greenland ice cap did not collapse when the global temperatures rose to 5°C higher than present, what makes you think that the Greenland ice cap will collapse should we reach temperatures warmer by between 3.6°C to 5°C today, as AGW proponents "predict" will happen?
Just answer the question. It really is rather simple. :)
That question again is:
If the Greenland Ice Sheet did not collapse when the global temperatures rose to 5°C higher than present during the last interglacial period, what makes you think that the Greenland Ice Sheet will collapse should we reach temperatures warmer by between 3.6°C to 5°C today, as AGW proponents "predict" will happen?
How about answering the question rather than hiding it?
http://www.ncdc.n...ial.html
Same thing for the Mid-Holocene Warm Period - About 6,000 Years Ago.
http://www.ncdc.n...ene.html
Excellent post John Balls.
Vel: One word for you "Google"
There is a difference between what you say and the phrase "DURING the last interglacial." There also is a difference between 125,000 years and 116,000-113,000 years ago. Hahahaha!
Your first cited article above refers to "ca. 125,000 Years Ago" whereas mine cited above refers to the period DURING the last interglacial period of "116,000-130,000 years ago."
Nice try at twisting the data but you have failed--again.
Now, please just answer the question, Dt. That question again is:
Your second citation has not a whit to do with what we are discussing and is a smokescreen or even a red herring.
Please just answer the question, and now you can answer this question, too. Both questions are relevant. :)
http://www.indepe...966.html
If the world had been as hot as you suggest (5°C above today) the ice in Antarctica would have melted then and the microbes would have spilled into the ocean. But they didn't They are there now.
The researcher from the BBC link obviously used the incorrect models when the 5°C was equated because it's just not possible.
("High-resolution record of Northern Hemisphere climate extending into the last interglacial period" URL: http://www.ncdc.n...004.html Accessed: 6-13-2009)
So, here is another source that confirms the 5°C higher temperature in the northern hemisphere during the last interglacial period. Incidentally, the data comes directly from the issue of Nature I mentioned above, for those interested in the cite and its location. :)
And no, it is not a trick question. By the way, quit saying that it is not possible when the data seems to show that it is possible. Nice try, but you must try again... :)
Here is the citation for the article, although there are other sources that tend toward confirming that temperature, several of which I have cited above.
Nature v.431, No. 7005, pp. 147-151, 9 September 2004
"We find unexpectedly large temperature differences between our new record from northern Greenland and the undisturbed sections of the cores from central Greenland, suggesting that the extent of ice in the Northern Hemisphere modulated the latitudinal temperature gradients in Greenland."
So it got a little hotter in one part of Greenland. That would not be enough to cause a collapse. Now ALL of Greenland is warming. BIG difference there.
Peer reviewed science says that a part of Central Greenland was 5°C warmer than present during the last interglacial period. Greenland is a rather largre place you know.
What the article shows is that several sections of the ice sheet were folded by interaction with the bedrock and that they took these samples from another area that contained the desired data. The other ice cores do not go as far back as the samples described in the full article.
Please try not to twist the data as it is applicable to the whole of Greenland. The cores for the article were taken from NORTHERN Greenland, which is, well, further north and more likely to be COLDER than the location further south. :)
In other words, if O16/O18 isotope data was taken from northern Greenland, which was colder, what does that say about southern Greenland?
In reality, the isotope readings tell us what is in the atmosphere and these readings corrolate with 5°C higher temperatures in the atmosphere.
Deuterium isotope readings tell us what is contained in the ice whereas O16/O18 isotope readings tell us what is in the atmosphere and correlates with the "why" of that ratio.
Try again... :)
Actually, other data seems to show that there was a 1°C to 2°C climb in temperature in other regions around the same time. Nonetheless, you have not answered the question.
If the Greenland Ice Sheet did not collapse when the temperatures in the climate of the Northern Hemisphere rose to 5°C higher than present during the last interglacial period, what makes you think that the Greenland Ice Sheet will collapse should we reach temperatures warmer by between 3.6°C to 5°C today, as AGW proponents "predict" will happen?
See the chart here: http://www.ncdc.n...3-pg.gif
http://www.ncdc.n...ial.html
To start with in only shows a 1-2°C average for most of Greenland. I was not giving you a bump in all those blue sections.
Oh Brrrrr! Yea! Tell that to the folks of Australia that endured "Black Saturday" a few months ago.
http://www.wsws.o...09.shtml
And now El-Nino is returning to start their drought cycle over again. Black Saturday actually happened during a weak La-Nina. That should not have happened. Unless.....
This is precisely why the climate scientists are getting the data and the models wrong. They think only one type of data is important. It all is. Until climate scientists start looking at the whole of the data they will continue to get things wrong. Atmospheric temperatures of 5°C higher than today are important to the interior of Greenland, which is, of course, where the GIS resides. :)
Man! There are sure an awful lot of "it is very difficult to say" statements in that article you cited above. :)
By the way, you still have not answered the questions. Still waiting.... :)
http://www.ncdc.n...emp.html
Ummm, your chart was current to 2001. Time to update... :)
By the way, winter 2008 was touted as the "coldest winter of the 21st century."
Good one.
That's because the 21st century has been WAY above the 20th century mean.
2008 was still the 8th warmest year in recorded history
http://www.noaane...ats.html
Ninth according to NASA. And the entire top ten occured from 1997-2008.
http://data.giss....mp/2008/
You are significantly out of date. You're missing 4 months of debate on whether the smoothing method used was accurate, and you're using the old graphs. Good work.
Yeah, problem is to prove that you need to have an upper tropospheric hot spot. Unfortunately you don't so again, your hypothesis has been disproven by your own sources.
It is not O2 levels that dictate anything. It is the O16/O18 oxygen isotope ratios that demonstrate climate temperature.
During the times when insects were huge there were both high concentrations of CO2 AND O2. Certain kinds of insects can grow to larger sizes in the presence of higher quantities of O2. During the time in question O2 levels were on the order of ~35% of the composition of the atmosphere instead of the current 21%.
The plants also were huge, such as six-foot or higher mosses, and so forth, due to higher than "normal" levels of CO2--well over 5000 ppm (or so the proxies from the period tell us)!
There is something else that has recently come up that is sure to influence discussions of CO2 and how bad/good it is for the earth.
Turns out that recent data seems to indicate that we are dooming life to extinction sooner than later by making any efforts to reduce atmospheric CO2!
Yes, you are reading this correctly. It turns out that the current level of CO2 in the atmosphere is insufficient to help control the boiling off of the ocean in a billion years, when the sun grows hot and radiant enough to boil off the oceans and roast everything on the planet into oblivion.
The scientists who made this discovery are advocating bleeding off or sequestering nitrogen out from the atmosphere to compensate for the loss of CO2 by lessening the pressure of the atmosphere in order to extend earth's life another 1.3 billion years!
The basic underlying premise of the article, however, is that we would not need to do that if the CO2 levels were higher!!! Here is the summary of the article:
Is working to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere dooming the planet in the long run? Is this another case of saving the planet to destroy it? Of course, what is a billion years? None of us will be there to see it. :)
LOL I guess for someone so drenched in the delusional fantasies of big oil's Church of Global Warming Denialism, some sort of tin hat conspiracy just has to emerge.
There is massive biomass destruction going on due to population growth, land clearing and movement of people from self-sustaining farm environments to energy intensive cities.
Does anyone have a solid grasp on the impact of this? ...I doubt it. How do you tell the bulk of the world's population that the society they see in the movies can never be one they enjoy... that it is simply unsustainable?
If you want to change the world, change yourself first. ...unfortunately, we lack the will to do that. It is far more likely that rising poverty, rising terrorism and brutal wars or die-offs will solve our climate problem by "fixing" our population problem.
I wish we could first "grow up" and make our lives truly self-sustaining, but even Gore flys about in his plane, supposedly paying for it in "carbon credits". When Al starts wearing recycled drapes and growing potatoes in his back yard, I'll see a glimmer of hope.
For my own part, my family and I recycle more than three times what we put out in trash and that ratio of recycling is about to increase as we begin mulching our own soil. We have been replacing our lighting with LED lighting as time goes by.
Of course, I am doing the lighting changes to save money in the long run, not try to save the planet. I simply have seen no hard, irrefutable evidence that man is causing the heating of the planet with CO2, contra the nonsense of the IPCC and clan.
Recycling on a mass scale and cleaning up our pollutive messes will do far more to save the planet than CO2 restriction ever will.
Since NOAA says 8th, NASA says 9th and the WMO says 10th, does it really matter? What number are you suggesting?
Al Gore's home is all alt energy. He had a high utility bill when his home was being renovated. The AGW sceptics jumped all over it in desperation.
CWFlink: there is a point of no return. If the permafrost in Alaska and Siberia thaws, life as we know it is over and will take hundreds of thousands of years to get back to where we are today.
http://abcnews.go...arth2100
Ask a logical question and I will answer it. All your asking is "what if" the temps were 5°C above today's temps during the last IP. They were only that high in sections of Greenland. If that were the situation today, there would be no worries.
When you have done that, answer the question. The question is quite logical, for O16/O18 isotope ratios give information relative to the climate as the ratio changes when the environment is warmer.
You have refused to answer the question because you still think it is a trick question. :)
John Balls; it doesn't matter where a good argument comes from. It also doesn't matter who poses a fact that isn't explained by the current scientific model. A laymen (or internet nerd as you say it) can ask very interesting questions. A saying in Dutch is 'Een gek kan meer vragen dan tien wijzen kunnen beantwoorden.' 'A fool can ask more questions than 10 wise people can answer'.
The internet is a very important instrument for the scientific community. It also enables people without a scientific title and occupation in a relevant field, but with a scientific mind (and maybe even a scientific occupation in another field) to ask possibly interesting questions and pose possibly contradicting data to the recently emerging scientific field of climate science.
After all, logic and fact are fundamental to science, and totally independent of the person.
Only a fool thinks he has all the wisdom of the earth.
J.
Weather and climate are two different things.
Yes, Climate is much larger than weather and as such, climate modeling employs a far many more variables than weather forecasting. Since the models at hand need to be many magnitudes more complex to have a reasonable level of accuracy, one would most likely not base their research on modeling. Yet, everything you bring up states something about these very same models.
Why is that? Is it because it's the only part of the theory that holds true? While the model matches the hypothesis the climate is doing whatever it cares to, in most cases this is making the modelers look very bad.
Seeing as it's well understood that heat rises and that the atmosphere is a relatively poor conductor of heat, one would think you'd be more interested in looking at the upper troposphere, particularly the tropopause as that is where the net gain or loss of atmospheric energy would be found. This info is especially important to the Greenhouse gas driven model of Anthropogenic Global warming.
So, where's the hotspot? Surface temperatures can be relegated to having interaction with the UHIE where as CO2 is a well mixed gas, leading to a naturally smoothed reading baseline.
I didn't know you live on the surface of the ocean! Must be a nice houseboat, Dt. How much you pay for it?
Weather has more variables than Climate. It's impossible to pinpoint things like when and where a pop-up shower will occur. But global warming is easy to forcast. If you have a greenhouse it is very easy to predict it will stay warm inside. (unless you leave the door open or punch a hole in the roof) Excessive greenhouse gasses do the exact same thing. No ifs, ands or buts about it.
Since the upper troposphere temperatures has no effect on the surface temperatures it dosn't matter what the temperatures in the UT are. The UT has been cooling and warming, but the surface temperatures are staying warm.
Dach:
Hurricanes live on the surface of the ocean. When the ocean is warmer the hurricanes get bigger and stronger. Ike should have been a wake up call for everybody last year. It was only a cat-2 but it was the most destructive and costly in history. (because of it's sheer size)
Or the method of construction of that greenhouse did not take all environmental variables into account. For example, you wouldn't expect a greenhouse in Antarctica to be warm. But if you didn't know it was cold in Antarctica you would expect it to be warm. Current climate science has many holes in its understanding. You cannot say you know anything until the system is well understood, and it is not.
Unless GHGs are not at play due to other unknowns about our climate system.
Upper tropospheric temperatures are a primary indicator of radiative forcings. Without radiative forcing evidence you cannot state that GHG's are suspect. You have no evidence as CO2 IR absoprtion is not driven by altitude. An increase in surface temperature due to IR requires a tropospheric increase in temperature due to fundamental physics.
Cite your references please.
That's not true. Hurricanes are formed by inequality in atmospheric energy contrast. Hurricanes form at the equator and push into areas of lower energy, (towards the poles), warm water flows provide excess energy in localized circumstances, however, that energy is redistributed by the hurricane as the system attempts to reach equilibrium. This is why GW should produce weaker hurricanes, not stronger ones.
Prior to Ike, the five costliest in history, unadjusted for inflation were Katrina(05) at 76 billion, Andrew (92) at 45 billion, Charley (04) 15.4 billion, Ivan (04) 17.7 billion,
and Hugo(89) 15.6 billion.
After adjusting for inflation, Ike would be sitting probably 4th or 5th at 32 billion (estimated) after Hugo.
http://news.natio...ike.html
And inside a greenhouse in Antarctica would be warmer than outside. In a greenhouse, shortwave radiation can get in but longwave radiation is restricted from getting out.
And what cooling trend are you talking about? When the world surface temps drop back down to the 20th century mean for at least one year, then you might be onto something. But that will not happen in the 21st century.
Andrew was only 15 billion.
http://www.insure...rew.html
Ivan 14.2
http://www.hurric...van.html
Hugo 13.9 billion
Now lets have a look at other global warming costs:
http://www.infopl...823.html
Look at how much 2008 costs.
Then there's this: (global warming kills 300,000 each year.
http://www.msnbc....30998907
As for the upper troposphere temperatures. Yes is has been cooling. Greenhouse gasses cool the UT. But it dosn't help us any.
http://rankexploi...cooling/
The peer-reviewed science cited above by me shows and agrees that the climate was 5°C warmer during the last interglacial.
So, based upon that science, just answer the question. We are still waiting....
And you are comparing an IP event with a greenhouse effect event. Apples and oranges.
http://www.ncdc.n...ial.html
Greenhouse effect events ALWAYS happen. IPs come in cycles. Were it not for the constant greenhouse effect, you and I would not be having this discussion and the earth would be a frozen wasteland.
You have yet to demonstrate that earth's recent warming trend is caused by CO2 emissions. This has not been proven and is still in hypothesis stage.
Your link is based on a different analysis than that which demonstrates that the northern hemisphere's climate was warmer by 5°C than present.
In addition, the climate temperatures were those on land and you keep bringing up sea-surface readings, which are two different things. This you seem to fail to grasp.
Here is the thing, Dt, sea surface temperatures are always going to be a few degrees lower than land climate temperatures. So, if the temperatures of the water were at 2.5°C above today's temperatures, what does that really say about other temperatures in the climate on land?
Do the math, buddy...
I think the real reason you do not want to take the time to answer the question is because it will cause you to take your fingers out of your ears and stop chanting, "Lalalalala...I'm not listening...!"
I think you need to get back to basics. Here is the easiest explination of the greenhouse effect I can find:
http://www.epa.go...use.html
If this is too complicated for you, you should contact an attorney and sue all your teachers.
Lord Monckton disagrees with you. You know who he was, climate adviser to Thatcher.
I think you may want to do the same in regards to your statistics teachers.
"An increase in the presence of one trace gas on the order of 0.0003% of the total atmosphere can increase global temperature by 5 degrees C through the capture of additional IR."
Do you see a problem with that statement? You should, but yet you still hold it to be true.
There is no way CO2 is responsible for GW. It's not possible. There is no mathematical method that can account for it.
So Dragontide, prove your theory that all of the world's warming can be attributed to CO2.
Through what mechanism can a less than 1% change in the atmosphere of the Earth cause a "catastrophic heating" of 5 degrees Celsius? Please be explicit as I've been waiting to see the settled science in pen and paper, peer reviewed, form.
See John Balls statement above. Plenty of AGW peer review.
The temps will be at least 6C above by 2070. Because of Co2 and the permafrost melt.
What part of the greenhouse effect link confused you?
The math:
Co2 was 280 PPM in pre-industrial days. It was above 360 in 2002. The sun played a minor role in the years 1900 and 1960.
http://earthguide.../03.html
It is not the word of one doctor alone. That appears to have been the only portion of what I have posted above, which the rampant downranker has hidden. There is a whole lot of peer reviewed science out there that says that the climate in the Northern Hemisphere was 5°C warmer than at present.
If you only stick to websites you will never see most of it.
Once again, the sea surface temperatures are going to be lower than land surface temperatures on the order of several degrees. If we average that all out with the sea surface temperatures and compare it to the O16/O18 isotope ratio from the same period, it all comes out to at least 5°C warmer than the present.
Where do you think this idea came from? From people who actually do the science. It did not originate with me. I merely am the bringer of the news. Have you read Lamb yet? Thought not. Perhaps it is you who has need to sue your instructors.
Here is what I pointed out, which is what is on the weblink you supplied:
This website says exactly the same thing I said above. You do not seem to read very well, Dt. I'd lay off the alcohol, if I were you.
Well, for starters, I did not know that these organizations had temperature monitors during the last interglacial period. :)
The only way to get at the temperatures in the environment and climate is via proxies. Some proxies are better at telling the story than others. Heating of the air by ambient temperature in the climate causes the ratio of O16 to O18 to change.
The ratio as found in the Greenland Ice Cores from the undisturbed sections of the GIS dating to the time of the last interglacial period shows that the temperature was at least 5°C higher than today.
I'd suggest you read the Nature article in full before shoving that foot even further down your throat, Dt.
Fact is, I think you are afraid to read the article and the underlying paper because it will rattle your fantasy world back into reality.
The doctor is obviously a quack. If you want to ONLY count any given two ice core samples, you could come up with just about anything. If you took only 2 from Antartica and ignored the rest, you could show that the last IP was actually cooler and could make the claim the IP never happened.
Wrong! You have revealed your ignorance. Thank you.
Would that it were only one doctor. It is obvious that you have not even so much as read even a fraction of what I have given you to read. I think you cannot understand the data, for the raw isotope data is available for download and you can plug the numbers into the d18O formulae.
Here are the names of those involved in the isotope study of the ice cores.
K. K. ANDERSEN, N. AZUMA, J.-M. BARNOLA, M. BIGLER, P. BISCAYE, N. CAILLON, J. CHAPPELLAZ, H. B. CLAUSEN, D. DAHL-JENSEN, H. FISCHER, J. FLÜCKIGER, D. FRITZSCHE, Y. FUJII, K. GOTO-AZUMA, K. GRONVOLD, N. S. GUNDESTRUP, M. HANSSON, C. HUBER, C. S. HVIDBERG, S. J. JOHNSEN, U. JONSELL, J. JOUZEL, S. KIPFSTUHL, A. LANDAIS, M. LEUENBERGER, R. LORRAIN, V. MASSON-DELMOTTE, H. MILLER, H. MOTOYAMA, H. NARITA, T. POPP, S. O. RASMUSSEN, D. RAYNAUD, R. ROTHLISBERGER, U. RUTH, D. SAMYN, J. SCHWANDER, H. SHOJI, M.-L. SIGGARD-ANDERSEN, J. P. STEFFENSEN, T. STOCKER, A. E. SVEINBJÖRNSDÓTTIR, A. SVENSSON, M. TAKATA, J.-L. TISON, TH. THORSTEINSSON, O. WATANABE, F. WILHELMS & J. W. C. WHITE.
One doctor, indeed! :)
Oh, but it gets better than this, Dt. There are a number of newer studies that also looked into the same isotopic ratios in fossils taken from under the sea and from other core samples taken in the Northern Hemisphere. All agree that the climate temperature was higher by at least 5°C.
Add to that another component of the study that involved the Mg/Ca ratio in the shells of various forms of life, calibrated by Antarctica ice core data from Dome 6. The more magnesium in relation to calcium the warmer the water and by extension the air.
All of these agree that the climate was warmer way back then than now and the data correlates well with temperatures on the order of which the above data I presented (which has been hidden by the rampant downranker) gives.
The public will be reading this data shortly so no need for citations at present. But, in the meantime, you might want to obtain the raw data and plug the numbers into the formulae.
Prepare to have your world rocked. Or, you can remain in your state of ignorant bliss like an Ostrich with his head in the sand. It really is up to you. :)
http://earthobser...ceCores/
Yes it was 5 above. But LONG before the IP. Surf around that site and learn something.
2 ice core samples indeed. You have been joking all along right? You got me.
*pats Dach on the head* :D
GISP2??? BWAHAHAHAHAHA! GISP 2 does nto even go back as far as the data in the Nature article that you keep refusing to read. You must be having trouble reading English, Dt. Maybe I shouldn't laugh. :)
Long before the IP the temperatures were at times reaching as high as 10°C to 15°C higher than today. I suggest a little more research and more reading of the data supplied by the very people who worked on site and published.
The citation from Nature is above. Read the entire article, please. Oh, and read Lamb. Seriously....
Even when scientists assume that solar activity is increasing, they can"t account for all of the warming observed at the end of the twentieth century. And when more incoming heat from the sun melts significant amounts of polar ice, it has always taken thousands of years to do so. Now it has only happened in a few decades.
http://www.pbs.or...remeice/
They do not go far enough, which is what required examination of the other cores for part of the study. You also seemed to have ignored the fact that more than one "doctor" was involved and you still have not read the papers or books for yourself. Some scientifically inclined person you have turned out to be!
Read the papers. Read Lamb. Ignore their work to your demonstrative stupidity. By the way, it is not my theory. I have only stated what those who did the studies have said about the data.
Since you likely will never read them in full out of fear, I do not expect that you ever be able to dig yourself out of the hole of falsehood in which you have buried yourself.
Read the articles or continue to demonstrate your inanity and failure to comprehend the science.
See Frechette, B., Wolfe, A.P., Miller, G.H., Richard, P.J.H. & de Vernal, A. 2006. "Vegetation and climate of the last interglacial on Baffin Island, Arctic Canada" in Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 236: 91-106.
Here is a snippet therefrom. The authors of the climate study on Baffin Island say that based upon:
This compares favorably with the data cited from the Nature article referenced above. In fact, these authors make comparisons with their data to the data found in the Nature article, the abstract I have cited above.
Incidentally, I am in process of locating and obtain some very, very interesting NOAA and NASA paleoclimate data that you might find very interesting. :)
Here is another study that might interest you (or, at least those who really understand the science).
Frechette, B.; de Vernal, A.; and Richard, P.J.H., 2008, "Holocene and Last Interglacial cloudiness in eastern Baffin Island, Arctic Canada." in Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 45(11):1221-1234.
Here is a snippet from the abstract:
The most important part I want you to see, however, but which you likely won't, is:
4 to 5°C Warmer than present! I can keep going but I am beginning to think it a waste of time dealing with someone so abysmally unaware of the science behind the claims I made above.
Again, take a gander at the stuff here. Again, we see the range of 4 to 5°C.
The difference between this article and others seen is that this one shows the strength of positive feedbacks of the Arctic on the environment and relate it to future warming.
But, the key thing you need to see is the temperature range. It is significantly higher than your misused ocean surface temperature chart. :)
One has to ask:
If the world is warming at such an alarming rate then why have we lost 3 weeks on the global growing cycle since 1998? After all, a warming world would mean warmer temperatures, but our crops are failing due to late frosts and excessive rainfall in the midwest.
The US crops are failing in the midwest, meanhwhile similar occurances are happening across China and Europe, shorter growing seasons, late frosts, and deluges of rainwater.
Locally, there has been a pronounced downtrend. Globally the same thing can be seen, particularly in the Northern Hemisphere.
Last year, China had its worst winter in 50-100 years. Britain had its harshest winter in 13 years according to the Met. Argentina had snow and Malibu, California, received a coat of slushy snow again for the third time in a row. It snowed in Baghdad, taking people by surprise as snow is not a regular occurrence there according to eyewitnesses.
Yep! Things are definitely getting hotter--in opposite world... :)
Climate change is determined by long term trends. Even 3rd graders know that. The temps shot up in 1998 and they're still there.
Dach:
As pointed out earlier, even if Greenland was as warm as you suggest during the last IP, most of the rest of the world was neutral or below today's temps. That means there was not enough precipitation in Greenland like there is today to accelerate melting. Put an ice cube outside on a hot day. Run cold tap water over another ice cube inside a cool air conditioned house. The second one melts MUCH faster. Dosn't it? You are comparing apples and oranges.
You don't read very well, do you? You have not read a single one of the articles, have you? The temperatures were not limited to Greenland during the last IP.
The temps were similar or the same in several locations in the Arctic during the same time period.
By the way, it is not my suggestion that Greenland was 4-5°C warmer during the last IP than today. I merely passed on the data from the several studies I have posted. I can easily dig up more.
As to your elementary school science experiment, a lab or a house is not the earth. There are many factors in the world that cannot be accounted for by elementary school science projects.
And, I do not think you know what precipitation is or what can or cannot influence it. It is you who are comparing apples to oranges and trying to apply it to salvaging the AGW camp's inane claims in the face of the paleo-evidence.
The experts have averaged in ALL the data. If your information was worth the paper it was printed on, it would be available on the web. The greenhouse effect was first concidered way back in the 1820s. The research and predictions have been in sync with the results.
I am afraid I do not see disasters in the geological record short of a temperature rise of about 30 degrees Celsius above current temperatures. Given the established stimulated response of plant life to increased carbon dioxide, I do not believe that is achievable.
The worst-case UN science based models would take 4,000 years to melt the Ice Caps and can only raise the Sea levels by 40 feet. Is this the disaster, change over four thousand years?
The biggest threat from global warming is migrating disease. But the droughts and extreme weather will take their toll too.
What could happen is shown in the film Earth 2100. (which is based on the research by some of the world's top thinkers)
http://a.abcnews.com/Technology/Earth2100/
You have proven positively that you have not even looked at the relevant data. I suggest that you read each and every source I referenced above. Recent studies found evidence of positive feedbacks in the Arctic in response to the climate. I'm sure you know what "positive feedbacks" in relation to climate science, mean, right??? Thought not. :)
Your first comment here is a lie. New data is streaming in all the time.
Worth the paper it was printed on? I see. You believe just about everything you read on the internet. Ok. Gotcha.
By the way, these materials are available on the internet--for a cost. Pay the fees, logon and have a ball. You always could also obtain them via interlibrary loan in some parts of the world.
They are peer-reviewed science. Peer-reviewed science often has its associated costs. But, anyone can publish on the internet, even if they do not know what they are talking about, just like you. Anyone can go on the internet and post so many cybertons of garbage.
As I said, there is no excuse for ignorance on your part. Use the Libraries or various universities, if you need to do so. That often is where I get my material. Or, purchase access to the articles or borrow copies from friends, if they have them.
Read the articles. Read Lamb in conjunction with the articles. Read the latest science to come out relating to temperatures and causes. Until you do that you demonstrate to the public the ignoramus that you are. :)
No, they don't want their funding pulled so they do not spend time raising their voices as vocally. They produce the science, their work is peer-reviewed and published. That is suffient. In addition, most true scientists do not want to waste their time getting themselves involved in politics.
Again, you also should read the articles I referenced. You really should. A few of them actually mention what they found in a context of global warming. But, if you never read them you never will know what is going on and will remain in the dark ages.
One other thing: you mentioned the lie that all the data is averaged out to come up with what the so-called climate scientists have come up with. The claim is even more of a lie because of what these very vocal, so-called climate scientists do with the data.
It is even more so since much of the data has been discarded and "algorithmically smoothed" before being used by most so-called climate scientists who have worked with the IPCC. That is by no means truly "averaging" anything out. It is cherry-picking the data and discarding anything that might weaken the point being made. It is the PC thing to do these days.
People seem to think that something made more widely available is true while something obtainable but not readily available is not worth the paper it is printed on. In reality, one gets what one pays for in the scientific world as in any other aspect of life.
Fact is, there is a whole lot of data out there that is being discarded and ignored but it is becoming overwhelmingly more numerous as people begin just publishing their data and not worrying about the consequences.
Once again, read all the articles and read Lamb. unlike others, none of them smooth down the data before "averaging" it out like a lot of so-called climate "scientists." Want to learn? Read the materials I have posted and referenced and try not to let the rampant downranker hide the information.
How long does a trend have to be to shift from "weather" to "climate"? I'd like you to frame that before we continue.
How many days, weeks, months, or years do we need on record for a trend to be considered climate?
The IPCC is the most peer reviewed science organization on the planet. If your scientist are too scared to attend a climate conference then they are not worth the paper their degrees are printed on. Obviously I didn't mean that data that has just been gathered has been factored in. But all that has been factored in is saying that the Dark Ages" are now just a few decades away.
Vel:
When the trends exceed the ENSO patterns. When things warm up from El-Nino, they cool back down once La-Nina returns. But now La Nina is having very little effect. What are you suggesting is the cause of the ten hottest years in recorded history occuring within the years from 1997 to 2008?
Or maybe because the AGW proponents refuse to debate with them.
Reference - http://climaterea...?id=3485
http://www.eranti...ndex.htm
No, answer the question, what period of time determines climate vs. weather?
Tip: your answer should be a sum that can be chronologically measured.
According to you our current climate trend is warming, which it isn't. The span of time that you refer to as being "climate" and not "weather" exists between the years of 1998 and 2002. That's 4 years. So, seeing as you won't answer the question, I'll assume you accept 4 years as a measure of climate. Here's the trend from 2002-2008, that's 1.5x your requirement and 1 year more than NOAA and the NCDC use to define climate.
2002: 0.51 C above prior century mean
2003: 0.56 C above prior century mean
2004: 0.54 C above prior century mean
2005: 0.58 C above prior century mean
2006: 0.54 C above prior century mean
2007: 0.57 C above prior century mean
2008: 0.48 C above prior century mean
All figures referenced directly from NOAA climate information readily available at http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/
Standard of variation in measurement: plus/minus 0.05
So let's look at these figures when smoothed using the same method Hansen used to determine the 1975-2000 mean, made famous by the IPCC summary for policy makers.
2002: 0.51 C corrected to 0.44C/0.56C
2003: 0.56 C corrected to 0.51C/0.63C
2004: 0.54 C corrected to 0.47C/0.61C
2005: 0.58 C corrected to 0.51C/0.65C
2006: 0.54 C corrected to 0.47C/0.61C
2007: 0.57 C corrected to 0.50C/0.64C
2008: 0.48 C corrected to 0.41C/0.55C
Now we go through and drop the two highest and two lowest.
2002: 0.51 C corrected to DROPPED/0.56C
2003: 0.56 C corrected to 0.51C/0.63C
2004: 0.54 C corrected to 0.47C/0.61C
2005: 0.58 C corrected to 0.51C/DROPPED
2006: 0.54 C corrected to 0.47C/0.61C
2007: 0.57 C corrected to 0.50C/DROPPED
2008: 0.48 C corrected to DROPPED/0.55C
Center the standard on undropped values:
2002: 0.51 C corrected to 0.56C
2003: 0.56 C corrected to 0.56C
2004: 0.54 C corrected to 0.54C
2005: 0.58 C corrected to 0.51C
2006: 0.54 C corrected to 0.54C
2007: 0.57 C corrected to 0.50C
2008: 0.48 C corrected to 0.55C
If anything our climate is stable as indicated by the popular simplified modeling methods for trending. The above is an example of smoothing. That's what the data yields. It's also probably the reason why all the current literature comming out on the AGW proponent side is lacking the period of time post 2002.
http://www.noaane...size.jpg
Global Top 10 Warm Years Anomaly °C Anomaly °F
2005 0.60 1.08
1998 0.58 1.04
2002 0.56 1.01
2003 0.56 1.01
2007 0.55 0.99
2006 0.54 0.97
2004 0.53 0.96
2001 0.49 0.89
1997 0.46 0.83
1995 0.40 0.72
http://www.ncdc.n...bal.html
I'm sorry? I don't understand what you mean. I just went through the temperature smoothing method and proved your statements of a warming world wrong using your sources and methods. That would mean your hypothesis, "The temperature measurements are showing an upward trend", as false. But rather than attempting to reinforce your argument you counter by linking your sources, the same ones that just proved you wrong, again and stating that you're not talking about climate.
So what are you talking about? Can you refute my preceeding statement?(remember to show your work). Can you reinforce your hypothesis? Right now I've submitted my burden of proof. Where's yours?
http://www.aip.or...rend.htm
No I'm not. I'm taking the adjusted figures directly from the NOAA site. To accuse me of data manipulation malfeasance means your very source committed the crime. So do you want to recant that statement or continue with it as planned?
You're also dodging the question again. Where is your burden of proof? Keep in mind you've just taken the adjusted data from NOAA(your source) and claimed it, and the statistical methods for smoothing from the IPCC summary for policy makers, and labeled them as "junk science".
http://hadobs.met...ing.html
The consensus in is favor of AGW. The burden of proof fall to the sceptics.
More misunderstood quotation and question dodging.
Answer the question on the table before you.
Where is your burden of proof?
And I'd like you to understand something that all classically trained scientists are required to know. That would be the scientific method.
The scientific method is a system of hypothesis verification. The burden of proof is on the one who forms the hypothesis.
You have formed the hypothesis, regardless of how people feel about it, it's in your court to prove or disprove your hypothesis.
Now that we've finished 1st grade science, please, answer the question:
Where is your burden of proof?
You completely changed datasets because your original dataset was found to not assist your views. So, you've artificially lowered the average temperature by excluding 1900-1983. An 83 year span of accurate data has been omitted from your statistics.
That, sir, is a cherry pick.
Your smoothing claim that makes the temperatures more convienent for you is a cherry pick. The last dataset clearly proves it.
I used a dataset and smoothing method that I don't agree with. You provided the sources, I simply falsified their conclusion through their own method. That's not a cherry pick, that's the scientific method.
So I'll make sure to read your second dataset and do the exact same thing. Standby.
Sorry buddy, AGW is a hypothesis that has not been proven regardless of your personal view. So support your hypothesis, prove AGW through your peer reviewed research sources.
That question is too open ended. All greenhouse gasses captre heat. That is a fact and was never up for debate. It's telling that you keep comming back here to attempt to sway my view when you refuse to answer direct questions.
The data is freely available, and my answer is yes.
I'm guessing you weren't alive in the 70's, or at least you were young to the point of naivete. Animals migrate to where the habitat suits them. Some species are migrating towards the poles, some are not. Remember the armadillo?
No, no they're not.
So, once again, where is your burden of proof?
Weather is becoming more extreme.
http://www.noaane...ort.html
Migrations have lenghtened and is becoming a very serious problem.
http://news.monga...ons.html
http://www.mcclat...948.html
I have shown that the Earth is warming. Where is your proof the Earth is cooling? How can so much polar ice melt if it's getting cooler?
http://www.pbs.or...remeice/
First of all, increased winds and storm activity have a lot to do with cold air meeting warm air. If the entire planet is warming, a lot of this storm activity should slow down, for there will be less and less cold air to interact with the warm air.
Second, this article does not say that weather IS becoming more extreme, it says that weather is "VERY LIKELY" to become more extreme! You should count the comments containing the words "VERY LIKELY" in the article, Dt. Nope, not proven; predicted!
No again. In spite of a couple mentioned species of birds, for the rest we have words like "is likely to increase" used throughout the article. In other words: not proven; predicted!
By the way, England is not all that far from the Mediterranean. Air currents are likely to make it possible for the birds to travel without expending a lot more energy. Besides, birds like it warmer. What do you think these birds did during the MWP or RWP? The same thing they are doing now. :)
As I was reading this article, the words "'could be a sign it is tied in with global warming,' Field said. 'We are trying to piece this all together.'" jumped out at me. In other words: not proven; questioned and data lacking!
From the above you have shown nothing of the kind. Instead, you have demonstrated your abysmal ignorance of the sciences and a lack of understanding of the scientific method at a fundamental level. I suggest getting more education.
Well, now, finally, a decent question. Once again, there is volcanic activity going on under Western Antarctica. This needs further study.
As to cooling, it has been a cooling trend. Just look at the raw data without the smoothing. It may in the end be a cooling trend within a greater warming trend but things have been cooling. The data I have observed shows this.
In fact, last year was slated "the coldest winter of the 21st Century."
Last year, China experienced the worst winter in 50-100 years, depending upon whom you talk to about it.
Last year, Malibu, California, a beach city, received a coat of slushy snow for the third time in a row.
Argentina had snow in their last winter. Baghdad, Iraq had snow, which is something that had not been seen in 25 years!
Winter 2009 was the harshest winter Britain has experienced in 13 years, according to the Met.
Please explain how it is that this is happening if there has not been a cooling trend?
While I agree that our greater concern should be with pollution rather than CO2, I disagree that the Act you mentioned will help. In fact, it could make things worse. In fact, "clean" energy sources such as solar technology destroy habitat and are responsible for the release of manmade GHGs 17,000 times more potent than CO2 since 1978.
And, let's not get me started on how this legislation will cost jobs (more than six millions lost just since a month after Obama took office) and will ruin the economy further. Don't believe it? Read the entire legislationa as to what will be done. Then, apply that to the current fossil-fuels based economy. Do the math. in the current trend, things are going to get a whole lot worse here in America. And, if America's economy crashes, the world's economy crashes.
This coming from sombody that thinks a warming trend in Greenland during the last interglacial period is suppose to warm the entire planey!
You need to learn the difference between climate and weather. 2008 was still in the top ten of the warmest years in recorded history.
You can't be serious about your mirgation comments. Do you EVER watch the news?
http://www.scienc...5925.htm
http://www.cbsnew...31.shtml
http://audubon.or...life.php
http://wildlife-c...igration
And green products will create many of the needed jobs. One of the reasons the American economy is hurting so bad as the sudden drop in American auto sales. All the commercials have been pushing these gas guzzlers. People in the States don't want to buy them because of the high gas prices and long gas lines that hurricane Ike brought about last year when it destroyed some off shore oil rigs.
As far as solar power goes, thin strips that will be placed on your roofs & windows are being developed. And once extreme weather events become less common then less damage will occur at windmill farms.
I already told you, I'm all done with the Global warming argument, you won't join me in the middle and look at things objectively, nor would many of the other on your side cease the talk of denialists and being in the pocket of big oil.
Go ahead and continue on with your preemptive policies and watch where they get you. Last time someone told me we had to do something Right Now!, it was Bush telling us to go to Iraq. That worked out really well, didn't it?
Yeah well, we'll see how much you think of Pachauri and his team when the legislation comes down.
Wait 'til your utility bills go up as well as the cost of basic necessities thanks to your pet legislation. Let's see how much you like it then. :)
By allowing temperatures to rise to a point there will be more equilibrium, storms potentially can be lessened in strength or prevented altogether. Some of the worst storms in recorded history took place when climate was colder.
In addition, solar and wind technologies destroy habitat and biodiversity, which is what I thought people in general wanted to do is save such things for the future.
In addition, current solar technologies introduce multiple tons of GHGs up to 17,000 times more potent than CO2 into the atmosphere, which GHGs also have a considerably large halflife in the amount of hundreds of years. I thought this also was something people were trying to prevent.
There are regulatory processes in place to prevent gasoline rising to the level of which you complain but in fact those in power do not execute such processes--with the exception of when they temporarily did so to get and keep votes, later letting prices return to higher levels after they were secure in the positions to which they were elected. :)
And now, brace yourself for a worsening economy. No one deserves it more, I think....
Then why are you using electricity at all? You do realie that the only people who will benefit financially due to the comming legislation are the coal and oil barrons don't you? Or do you not read bills like the rest of the politicians out there?