Global warming discussion III

[ABC10]

What pause would that be ....the one in your learning curve??

[qimg]https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-qVJmzQUsUmY/UslmNaaIIsI/AAAAAAAADiM/Gia5kYvJr-8/s566/heat_content2000m.png[/qimg]

or are you just regurgitating Faux news sound bites??

Tell us ..

Does CO2 trap IR?
This is a science form - you are expected to have some basic knowledge to comment intelligently.

I certainly would expect most would know the unimpressive record dates back to 1880.while planet earth is 4 1/2 BILLION years. pause is well known even by phil and Michael.

 

[CapelDodger]

well some are more easily impressed than others, particularly when there is a huge pause currently in the minimal 120 year record. We have had warm periods in the past, far exceeding, anything that exsists now so I wouldn't get too hyped up about it, what exactly did the planet manage to do? personally, I am impressed with 100,000 years of ongoing volcanoes. melting snowball earth ain't chopped liver either.

Leaving aside the mythical Pause, it took the planet tens of millions of years to melt from its snowball state. We'd have done the job in a couple of centuries tops once we'd agreed the fee. We've increased atmospheric CO₂ by 40% in 200 years and we're far from finished; the planet couldn't do that.

Damn' right I'm impressed. Lets hear it for protoplasm and a sense of purpose.

 

[CapelDodger]

I certainly would expect most would know the unimpressive record dates back to 1880.while planet earth is 4 1/2 BILLION years.

I know the most reliable records go back to the 1880's and that the planet is over 4 billion years old. In what way do these facts intersect in your thinking?

pause is well known even by phil and Michael.

Please elaborate. Best avoid quotes from 2010 in the process, it being well into 2014 now and pretty warm. Not quite up to the Late Heavy Bombardment, admittedly, but still kinda toasty.

 

[Trakar]

record from noaa started 1880 which is nothing in this 4 1/2 billion year old planet.

Upon what supporting evidence do you base this assertion?

 

[macdoc]

Does CO2 trap IR?
This is a science form - you are expected to have some basic knowledge to comment intelligently.

I certainly would expect most would know the unimpressive record dates back to 1880.while planet earth is 4 1/2 BILLION years. pause is well known even by phil and Michael.

answer the question.....prevarication signals lack of knowledge.

Don't use the first names of people you do not know and have never dealt with.....it's a childish habit.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Verified last July was the worst month ever in denialist quality in these threads. The only bit from the denier+denialist side that may have elicited some intelligent debate was AlBell's «Is my understanding correct that CO2 sensitivity is not computed from first principals[sic], but chosen from many model runs using different values for it, and the value selected for projections is the one that best ties historical data?» which hid a valid objection, but AlBell wouldn't continue it.

But August seems to continue down the road. This one

the record is 120 years out of 4 1/2 billion years of the planet earth - and thay impresses folk? nonsense.

is so far the stupidest excuse of an argument I've ever seen, and I suppose it to be the intellectual love child of the reality-based meme "CO2 is a trace gas". Pretty much like asking what matters a person stopped breathing during ten minutes when it's known she or he had breath the previous 85 years (45 million minutes) and breathing is in her/his own nature.

I remind the participants that forum rules allow -and even promote- lunatics posting "I'm not crazy" and psychiatrists replying "yes, you are" in an endless cycle of birth, death and rebirth, provided "sanity" is the thread's topic. Of course, posting their bit repeatedly doesn't make the crazy ones saner, but the psychiatrists might be held unprofessional for considering their bit to be sound therapy. So maybe Haig and others doesn't need to be replied so often or by so many people. It's the mechanics of the posting what needs to be addressed within the topic. Otherwise is a just business of pleasure: denialists feel thrilled by googling a short query and selecting what fits their expectation, and having to review 100 results from 5 queries to find what fits an argumentation don't make them "knowledgeable" but epistemological hedonist with taste; while warmers feel thrilled for having so easy ducks to hunt. Of course, the duck googles again its way around so it doesn't feel duck at all -it may feel a cunning human-, and the warmer finds hunting to be an exiting sport. But that doesn't really discuss the topic, does it?

 

[Reality Check]

the record is 120 years out of 4 1/2 billion years of the planet earth - and thay impresses folk?

The record impress's anyone who is alive today and has children or grandchildren who they want to live comfortably in the future, ABC10!

The idea that the temperatures of the past 4 1/2 billion years are automatically pertinent to today is easily shown to be insane by considering the molten rock that was the Earth 4 1/2 billion years ago !

Past temperatures do have some pertinence for today. For example by studying the response of climate to CO2 changes we can predict the changes to global surface temperature caused by our emissions of CO2.
How sensitive is our climate?

Some global warming 'skeptics' argue that the Earth's climate sensitivity is so low that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in a surface temperature change on the order of 1°C or less, and that therefore global warming is nothing to worry about. However, values this low are inconsistent with numerous studies using a wide variety of methods, including (i) paleoclimate data, (ii) recent empirical data, and (iii) generally accepted climate models.
...
The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report summarized climate sensitivity as "likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C. Values substantially higher than 4.5°C cannot be excluded, but agreement of models with observations is not as good for those values."

 

[Reality Check]

well some are more easily impressed than others, particularly when there is a huge pause currently in the minimal 120 year record. ....

The impressiveness is not in the global warming, ABC10, but how quickly we caused it. Previous comparable changes took thousands of years - we did in in less than 200! That is impressive !

There is no "huge pause" in the 120 year record. There is a reduction in the rate of increase and no reduction in the 54 year record of ocean temperatures: Global cooling - Is global warming still happening?

Empirical measurements of the Earth's heat content show the planet is still accumulating heat and global warming is still happening. Surface temperatures can show short-term cooling when heat is exchanged between the atmosphere and the ocean, which has a much greater heat capacity than the air.

 

[CapelDodger]

Verified last July was the worst month ever in denialist quality in these threads.

I can't remember a worse.

But August seems to continue down the road. This one

the record is 120 years out of 4 1/2 billion years of the planet earth - and that impresses folk? nonsense.

is so far the stupidest excuse of an argument I've ever seen, and I suppose it to be the intellectual love child of the reality-based meme "CO2 is a trace gas".

Well put.

 

[Belz...]

I certainly would expect most would know the unimpressive record dates back to 1880.while planet earth is 4 1/2 BILLION years.

...and ?

 

[ehcks]

The impressiveness is not in the global warming, ABC10, but how quickly we caused it. Previous comparable changes took thousands of years - we did in in less than 200! That is impressive !

I like the 10k year temperature graph that came up recently enough
http://cdn.zmescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/10000-year-graph.jpg

Roughly the same relative minimum and maximum, but the warming 10k years ago took two thousand years, then held steady for five thousand. The current warming took... well, it's too small to measure on this graph. A couple pixels. And it's not stopping yet.

 

[Reality Check]

us, we, the denier's will be laughing at that event till the new ice age rolls south again...snipped gibberish....

Well "us, we, the denier's" (does that "us" include you ABC10?) are certainly exposing an irrational denial of climate science itself since there are no predictions of a new ice age in the next century of so from climate scientists. So "us, we, the denier's" will not be laughing - "us, we, the denier's" will be long dead .

These ignorant people think that climate is still driven primarily by the Sun which is rather deluded: Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions

In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions. In the past century, the Sun can explain some of the increase in global temperatures, but a relatively small amount.

Or they go for the delusion that a Maunder Minimum will throw us into a little ice age: Are we heading into a new Ice Age?

The warming effect from more CO2 greatly outstrips the influence from changes in the Earth's orbit or solar activity, even if solar levels were to drop to Maunder Minimum levels.

Also see
A grand solar minimum would barely make a dent in human-caused global warming

 

[Reality Check]

is so far the stupidest excuse of an argument I've ever seen, and I suppose it to be the intellectual love child of the reality-based meme "CO2 is a trace gas".

The "120 years out of 4 1/2 billion years" inanity could be the love children of oh so many myths!
As stated it is a statement of ignorance: "number big, other number small so denier cannot understand why small number important".

It could the number one climate science skeptic myth:
What does past climate change tell us about global warming?

It could be ABC10 not understanding that we live now, not in the past 4 1/2 billion years - 120 years.
The 120 years figure implies genuine ignorance of climate science - we have instrumental records back to 1850 (164 years), proxy data back 1000 years, paleoclimatology back ~12,000 years and ice core proxy data back ~800,000 years. Even geological proxy data for millions of years in the past.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I like how ABC10 dismisses AGW because the time span in which it's been occurring is insignificant compared to the age of the Earth. But then he goes on to vomit up the supposed 15 year "pause" as proof against AGW anyway.

That's pretty special.

 

[Corsair 115]

I await the inevitable claims that climate change is nothing but a grand global conspiracy cooked up to do... well, something nefarious surely.

 

[Trakar]

I await the inevitable claims that climate change is nothing but a grand global conspiracy cooked up to do... well, something nefarious surely.

These are common, and have their own thread in CT specifically created to allow the proper discussion of such subjects.

 

[CapelDodger]

I like how ABC10 dismisses AGW because the time span in which it's been occurring is insignificant compared to the age of the Earth. But then he goes on to vomit up the supposed 15 year "pause" as proof against AGW anyway.

That's pretty special.

Nice point .

 

[Corsair 115]

These are common, and have their own thread in CT specifically created to allow the proper discussion of such subjects.

The specifics of such claims is less important than the fact that some people actually make and believe such claims. I think that point can be made without sidetracking the thread into conspiracy claim details.

 

[Trakar]

The specifics of such claims is less important than the fact that some people actually make and believe such claims. I think that point can be made without sidetracking the thread into conspiracy claim details.

Fully agreed, but it helps to have that link handy when you are asking for conspiracy posts to be moved to the proper CT thread according to JREF housekeeping policies.

 

[Trakar]

more puppy dog tails

The city fixers
http://www.bluemountaineagle.com/th...8e1dfe484a72c7a6b999af446ec40773#.U9_BN7d0xxA
August 4, 2014 6:00AM

University of Oregon faculty members who propose hiring four new "hot shot" professors who are experts in "sustainability" lack nothing when it comes to thinking big.

They'll tell you their aim is to change the world by figuring out how to rebuild and reorganize cities in the United States and around the globe to account for climate change, population growth and environmental damage.

They're founders of the UO's six-year-old Sustainable Cities Initiative, and now they mean to start a research hub on sustainability that will deploy solutions to such seemingly insurmountable urban global problems as climate warming, clogged highways, obesity and the economics of mega-population centers…

The initiative has drawn at least 55 UO faculty members into its projects, sent its sustainability experts everywhere from Sweden to China to the United Arab Emirates -- all the while collecting national and international accolades…

The UO's sustainable cities initiative is one of 10 programs in which the UO wants to boost hiring as part of its "clusters of excellence" effort -- provided it can find the money from donors and others to pay for the added positions…

Follow Diane on Twitter @diane_dietz .

--I spend a lot of time around the UO campus and this sustainability program is an increasingly impressive effort.

I was rather surprised by the less than credulous tone of an article confirming that the head of the Weather channel would agree with the scientists and military heads of America’s armed forces.

Weather Channel’s President Sides with the Joint Chiefs on Climate Change -http://www.globalatlanta.com/article/27078/weather-channels-president-sides-with-the-joint-chiefs-on-climate-change/
“Swell and sea in the emerging Arctic Ocean” –
.Jim Thomson, W. Erick Rogers.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL059983/pdf

Abstract
Ocean surface waves (sea and swell) are generated by winds blowing over a distance (fetch) for a duration of time. In the Arctic Ocean, fetch varies seasonally from essentially zero in winter to hundreds of kilometers in recent summers. Using in situ observations of waves in the central Beaufort Sea, combined with a numerical wave model and satellite sea ice observations, we show that wave energy scales with fetch throughout the seasonal ice cycle. Furthermore, we show that the increased open water of 2012 allowed waves to develop beyond pure wind seas and evolve into swells. The swells remain tied to the available fetch, however, because fetch is a proxy for the basin size in which the wave evolution occurs. Thus, both sea and swell depend on the open water fetch in the Arctic, because the swell is regionally driven. This suggests that further reductions in seasonal ice cover in the future will result in larger waves, which in turn provide a mechanism to break up sea ice and accelerate ice retreat.

From conclusion

… It is possible that the increased wave activity will be the feedback mechanism which drives the Arctic system toward an ice-free summer. This would be a remarkable departure from historical conditions in the Arctic, with potentially wide-ranging implications for the air-water-ice system and the humans attempting to operate there.

What say Capel? I still think there’s an outside chance of 2015! 

Top PR Firms Won’t Represent Climate Change Deniers
http://www.environmentalleader.com/2014/08/04/top-pr-firms-wont-represent-climate-change-deniers/

WPP, Waggener Edstrom (WE) Worldwide, Weber Shandwick, Text100 and Finn Partners are among the leading public relations firms that have pledged to not represent clients that deny man-made climate change or seek to block emissions-reducing regulations.

The Guardian reports that 10 of the top 25 global PR firms — responding to a survey conducted by the newspaper and Washington, DC-based Climate Investigations Center — said they won’t work with climate-change deniers.

This could hurt industry groups lobbying against the EPA’s proposed rules limiting carbon pollution from power plants and the international negotiations for a climate change treaty.

That may make the mid-terms more interesting!

Warming Atlantic Ocean Affects Pacific Climate
“Recent Walker circulation strengthening and Pacific cooling amplified by Atlantic warming” - http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2330.html

… Here we analyse a series of climate model experiments along with observational data to show that the recent warming trend in Atlantic sea surface temperature and the corresponding trans-basin displacements of the main atmospheric pressure centres were key drivers of the observed Walker circulation intensification, eastern Pacific cooling, North American rainfall trends and western Pacific sea-level rise. Our study suggests that global surface warming has been partly offset by the Pacific climate response to enhanced Atlantic warming since the early 1990s.

Getting caught with our plants down: the risks of a global crop yield slowdown from climate trends in the next two decades - http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/7/074003/article

In many discussions of climate change impacts in agriculture, the large magnitudes of expected impacts toward the end of the century are used to emphasize that most of the risks are to future generations. However, this perspective misses the important fact that demand growth for food is expected to be much slower after 2050 than before it, and that the next two decades represent the bulk of growth before 2050. Thus, impacts of smaller magnitude in the near-term can be as or more consequential for food prices or food security as larger magnitude impacts in the future. Here we estimate the risks that climate trends over the next 10 or 20 years could have large impacts on global yields of wheat and maize, with a focus on scenarios that would cut the expected rates of yield gains in half. We find that because of global warming, the chance of climate trends over a 20 year period causing a 10% yield loss has increased from a less than 1 in 200 chance arising from internal climate variability alone, to a 1 in 10 chance for maize and 1 in 20 chance for wheat. Estimated risks for maize are higher because of a greater geographic concentration than wheat, as well as a slightly more negative aggregate temperature sensitivity. Global warming has also greatly increased the chance of climate trends large enough to halve yield trends over a 10 year period, with a roughly 1 in 4 chance for maize and 1 in 6 chance for wheat. Estimated risks are slightly larger when using climate projections from a large ensemble of a single climate model that more fully explores internal climate variability, than a multi-model ensemble that more fully explores model uncertainty. Although scenarios of climate impacts large enough to halve yield growth rates are still fairly unlikely, they may warrant consideration by institutions potentially affected by associated changes in international food prices.

Link to full pdf - http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/7/074003/pdf/1748-9326_9_7_074003.pdf