Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Westwall]

Global warming close to becoming irreversible-scientists
Tue Mar 27, 2012 8:58pm GMT



http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFL6E8EQ4GA20120327?sp=true

It's gonna be a long hot summer (by way of analogy) as the anthropocene hits its stride.

When will that be exactly? I predict that the temp is going to stay even or drop over the next 20 years. When will the CO2 FINALLY have an effect that is measurable?

 

[Westwall]

I was discussing (well arguing as usual) climate change with my father who is an AGW skeptic. He's also pretty skeptical about religion, supernature, alt health etc and not a woo/nut.

One point he makes is that there have been a number of theories about the causes of climate change in the past, notably for the Little Ice Age for which the possible causes include volcanic action, solar activity, oceanic current changes, orbital cycles. The most recent evidence seems to point to volcanic after some glacial research in Canada & Iceland. The main point being that whilst some convincing theories exist, there is not scientific consensus. We don't know for sure what caused a pretty major change in the world's climate. And if we don't know that for sure, then how can we possibly be so sure that the current warming isn't natural.

I find it difficult to counter the point. I'm a lazy AGW believer - I can't possibly study all the evidence so I'm just going with the consensus view. I don't know all fine details which is probably why I cannot answer it.

So what is the story with that? Is it a valid argument?

Yes, it is. So far there is no compelling empirical data that shows any of the climate we have been experiencing is any different from that which has come before. Just do a Google search for any year you choose going back to 1600 or so. You will notice weather reports and reports of storms that are remarkably similar to what is going on now.

One of the worst storms ever recorded resulted in "the great drowning of men" and occured in January of 1362. I think you would agree that man wasn't able to even dream of affecting the climate back then.


"The storm Grote Mandrenke (Great Drowning of Men) strikes the Netherlands in January 1362. Hurricane-force winds with enormous waves and a considerable sea level rise (a storm surge) due to the combined action of push by the wind and lifting of the sea surface because of low air pressure flooded extensive areas of the Netherlands, killing at least 25,000 inhabitants."

http://timelines.com/1362/1/16/grote-mandrenke-storm

 

[Westwall]

Among mainstream working and publishing climate scientists, there is very little controversy. Global effects and impacts were minimal, barely registering above the noise of normality. Northern hemisphere effects approached significance but with a lot of varience depending upon which region you focus upon, and North Atlantic region effects were of significance. That position covers about two standard deviations (perhaps a bit more) of the population of working and publishing climate scientists.

Northern hemisphere approached significance? Surely you jest. The Vikings were able to maintain a vibrant successful colony for 500 years in Greenland capable of launching their OWN colonies to the New World. There was a max population of 13,000 spread out in four different regions, they had 12 churches, a monestary, a nunnery, and a cathedral. Not exactly a "struggling" colony like the AGW supporters try and make then out to be.

Now, I'm sure you'll belittle the 13,000 as an "insignificant" number of people, but that is more than 10% of the WHOLE viking population of Iceland, and Norway. So it wasn't an insignificant amount at all.

Add to that the recently published study on the ikaites found in Antarctica and suddenly the claim that the MWP was merely a regional event goes right out the window.

No controversy? Only for those who choose to ignore the scientific method.

"Abstract

Calcium carbonate can crystallize in a hydrated form as ikaite at low temperatures. The hydration water in ikaite grown in laboratory experiments records the δ18O of ambient water, a feature potentially useful for reconstructing δ18O of local seawater. We report the first downcore δ18O record of natural ikaite hydration waters and crystals collected from the Antarctic Peninsula (AP), a region sensitive to climate fluctuations. We are able to establish the zone of ikaite formation within shallow sediments, based on porewater chemical and isotopic data. Having constrained the depth of ikaite formation and δ18O of ikaite crystals and hydration waters, we are able to infer local changes in fjord δ18O versus time during the late Holocene. This ikaite record qualitatively supports that both the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age extended to the Antarctic Peninsula."


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X12000659

 

[Warmer1]

It's interesting how deniers will use the LIA and the Medieval Warm Period to argue their point that climate change is just a cycle that we haven't altered, but when you try and present the entire story of climate change the rest of the science is somehow not valid.

That is why I like the videos that were posted.

The temperature records are reconstructed from ice cores and some of the first were done in Vostok Antarctica. There are numerous other cores listed in the link below as well including ocean sediment cores.

"As of 2003, the longest core drilled was at Vostok station. It reached back 420,000 years and revealed 4 past glacial cycles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg
from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core

Now the records go back well over 800,000 years

Looking at the large scale cyclical change over a long period puts the LIA in perspective.


As for the period from 1800 to the present I love that the Berkley Project was paid for by people trying to argue against the scientific consensus about climate change.

"The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study has created a preliminary merged data set by combining 1.6 billion temperature reports from 16 preexisting data archives."

http://berkeleyearth.org/study/

Analysis Charts

http://berkeleyearth.org/analysis/

Land Temperature Anomaly Video
http://berkeleyearth.org/movies/

Hope this helps.

 

[Mikemcc]

When will that be exactly? I predict that the temp is going to stay even or drop over the next 20 years. When will the CO2 FINALLY have an effect that is measurable?

Nice to know your personal opinion, not sure of it's relevence though. It has even continued to rise over the last decade and a half, and it's like to carry on increasing since a number of cooling factors (in terms of surface air temperature) are coming to an end. Not to forget ocean heating too.

 

[Blue Mountain]

When will that be exactly? I predict that the temp is going to stay even or drop over the next 20 years. When will the CO2 FINALLY have an effect that is measurable?

That "when" is now. Try looking at the Arctic. The Northwest Passage is becoming ice-free enough to be considered navigable, a huge change from the 1800s when it could be completely ice bound for two or three years at a time.

That's causing political tensions between Canada and the US. Canada says the Passage is territorial waters and has the right to patrol it; the US says it's international waters and they have the right to send through any ship as they please.

No less than three companies are planning to run fibre optic cables from London to Tokyo through the Northwest Passage. You couldn't do that twenty years ago; there was just too much ice.

 

[Mikemcc]

Northern hemisphere approached significance? Surely you jest. The Vikings were able to maintain a vibrant successful colony for 500 years in Greenland capable of launching their OWN colonies to the New World. There was a max population of 13,000 spread out in four different regions, they had 12 churches, a monestary, a nunnery, and a cathedral. Not exactly a "struggling" colony like the AGW supporters try and make then out to be.

Now, I'm sure you'll belittle the 13,000 as an "insignificant" number of people, but that is more than 10% of the WHOLE viking population of Iceland, and Norway. So it wasn't an insignificant amount at all.

Add to that the recently published study on the ikaites found in Antarctica and suddenly the claim that the MWP was merely a regional event goes right out the window.

No controversy? Only for those who choose to ignore the scientific method.

"Abstract

Calcium carbonate can crystallize in a hydrated form as ikaite at low temperatures. The hydration water in ikaite grown in laboratory experiments records the δ18O of ambient water, a feature potentially useful for reconstructing δ18O of local seawater. We report the first downcore δ18O record of natural ikaite hydration waters and crystals collected from the Antarctic Peninsula (AP), a region sensitive to climate fluctuations. We are able to establish the zone of ikaite formation within shallow sediments, based on porewater chemical and isotopic data. Having constrained the depth of ikaite formation and δ18O of ikaite crystals and hydration waters, we are able to infer local changes in fjord δ18O versus time during the late Holocene. This ikaite record qualitatively supports that both the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age extended to the Antarctic Peninsula."


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X12000659

The scientist who wrote that abstract also has had this to say:

Zunli Lu:
“It is unfortunate that my research, “An ikaite record of late Holocene climate at the Antarctic Peninsula,” recently published in Earth and Planetary Science Letters, has been misrepresented by a number of media outlets.

Several of these media articles assert that our study claims the entire Earth heated up during medieval times without human CO2 emissions. We clearly state in our paper that we studied one site at the Antarctic Peninsula. The results should not be extrapolated to make assumptions about climate conditions across the entire globe. Other statements, such as the study “throws doubt on orthodoxies around global warming,” completely misrepresent our conclusions. Our study does not question the well-established anthropogenic warming trend.”

http://www.skepticalscience.com/scientist-sets-record-straight-on-mwp-research.html#commenthead

 

[Trakar]

"I solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else’s name."


That's called Identity Theft, in most states it is a felony.

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2...ception-in-obtaining-heartland-climate-files/

http://www.justice.gov/criminal/fraud/websites/idtheft.html

As per your offered information if there is no demonstration of pecuniary harm or substantive personal damage attributable to the alleged offense, then it doesn't typically fall under the heading of "identity theft." What you seem to be reaching for is more correctly identified as "criminal impersonation." Again, however, even here, I'm not sure that what Mr. Gleick has admitted to rises to the level of a criminal act.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/criminal-impersonation/

If you feel that a crime was committed, urge prosecution, we'll see what a prosecutor, judge and/or jury have to say about the issue. If they find him guilty of a crime then I am all for him receiving an appropriate penalty for such a judgement. I simply see no indication that a crime was committed, a lapse of ethics and an exposure of personal moral deficit, certainly, nothing, however, that has traditionally been called a crime.

 

[Trakar]

When will that be exactly?

It started more than a century ago, and by best current evidences will continue in impact for the next several tens of thousands of years at a minimum.

I predict that the temp is going to stay even or drop over the next 20 years...

Upon what empiric evidences do you base this assessment and more importantly, please reference the actively working and publishing climate researchers who concur with your opinions.

Thank-you, however, for keeping the sub-thread alive, it is the appropriate venue to continue discussing the topic that OP introduced, namely the "Planet Under Pressure" conference held in London this last week.

http://www.planetunderpressure2012.net/

STATE OF THE PLANET DECLARATION
International scientific community issues first
“State of the Planet Declaration”​

http://www.planetunderpressure2012.net/pdf/State_of_the_Planet_Declaration.pdf

Scientists today issued the first “State of the Planet” declaration* at a major gathering of experts on global environmental and social issues in advance of the major UN Summit Rio+20 in June.

The declaration opens: “Research now demonstrates that the continued functioning of the Earth system as it has supported the well‐being of human civilization in recent centuries is at risk.” It states that consensus is growing that we have driven the planet into a new epoch, the Anthropocene, where many planetary‐scale processes are dominated by human activities. It concludes society must not delay taking urgent and large‐scale action.

“This is a declaration to our globally interconnected society,“ said Dr Lidia Brito, director of science policy, natural sciences, UNESCO, and conference co‐chair.

“Time is the natural resource in shortest supply. We need to change course in some fundamental way this decade,” she added...

(rest at above link)

 

[Trakar]

...One of the worst storms ever recorded resulted in "the great drowning of men" and occured in January of 1362. I think you would agree that man wasn't able to even dream of affecting the climate back then...

Potential impacts of human-induced land cover change on East Asia monsoon
http://g01.cnitc.cn/uploadfile/file/资源/链接与文献/2003/2012010716254421.pdf

FROST FOLLOWED THE PLOW: IMPACTS OF DEFORESTATION ON THE CLIMATE OF THE UNITED STATES
http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/1051-0761(1999)009[1305:FFTPIO]2.0.CO;2?journalCode=ecap

The Role of Human Activities in Past Environmental Change
http://www.ak-geomorphologie.de/data/pgcf/chapter7.pdf

Climate-human-environment interactions: resolving our past
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/29/81/43/PDF/cpd-2-563-2006.pdf

...Further ideas stem from new palaeoecological and archaeological information about the beginnings and extent of human activities in the past. In some instances, these may change previous conceptions of undisturbed ecosystems and the beginnings of agriculture. Recent data syntheses show that measurable human impact on equatorial forest may date to at least 3500 cal yr BP in the Amazon Basin and the Congo, and to 7000–8000yr BP in SE Asia (Willis et al., 2004), the earliest maize cultivation in the Andes has recently been extended by more than one millennium to 4000 cal yr BP (Perry et al., 2006), and the earliest Asian rice cultivation is now dated to 10,000–14,000yr BP in the middle Yangtze region and possibly to 9000yr BP in India (Yasuda, 2002).

In other studies, piecing together data from different localities has permitted new theories about the early human role in effecting change across regional/global spatial scales. For example, Miller et al. (2005) show that human use of fire in Australia was the most likely driver of major vegetation change and megafaunal extinction, 50 000–45 000 years ago. This conclusion is not just central to a complete understanding of anthropological and environmental change in Australia, but it also gives credence to the view that early human impacts were able to transform key environmental processes over extra-local scales...

Many, many more such references available. Human induced climate change is not new, it has accompanied our species in its spread from its african cradle, and if we aren't careful it may guide us into a premature grave.

 

[Trakar]

Northern hemisphere approached significance? Surely you jest.

Not at all, of course we were discussing the LIA not your MWP fantasies. If you wish to discuss those in a rational and supported fashion, that is an ussue we can take up.

No controversy? Only for those who choose to ignore the scientific method.

I'm not sure what you are referring to with regards to ignoring "the scientific method," but if you mean ignoring empiric evidences and demonstrable facts, I wouldn't dream of such behavior.

"Abstract

Calcium carbonate can crystallize in a hydrated form as ikaite at low temperatures. The hydration water in ikaite grown in laboratory experiments records the δ18O of ambient water, a feature potentially useful for reconstructing δ18O of local seawater. We report the first downcore δ18O record of natural ikaite hydration waters and crystals collected from the Antarctic Peninsula (AP), a region sensitive to climate fluctuations. We are able to establish the zone of ikaite formation within shallow sediments, based on porewater chemical and isotopic data. Having constrained the depth of ikaite formation and δ18O of ikaite crystals and hydration waters, we are able to infer local changes in fjord δ18O versus time during the late Holocene. This ikaite record qualitatively supports that both the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age extended to the Antarctic Peninsula."

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X12000659

First, and foremost, nothing in this paper repudiates or contradicts my statement that: "Among mainstream working and publishing climate scientists, there is very little controversy. Global effects and impacts were minimal, barely registering above the noise of normality. Northern hemisphere effects approached significance but with a lot of varience depending upon which region you focus upon, and North Atlantic region effects were of significance. That position covers about two standard deviations (perhaps a bit more) of the population of working and publishing climate scientists."

Secondly, as the authors of this very paper state:

...Zunli Lu:
“It is unfortunate that my research, “An ikaite record of late Holocene climate at the Antarctic Peninsula,” recently published in Earth and Planetary Science Letters, has been misrepresented by a number of media outlets.

Several of these media articles assert that our study claims the entire Earth heated up during medieval times without human CO2 emissions. We clearly state in our paper that we studied one site at the Antarctic Peninsula. The results should not be extrapolated to make assumptions about climate conditions across the entire globe. Other statements, such as the study “throws doubt on orthodoxies around global warming,” completely misrepresent our conclusions. Our study does not question the well-established anthropogenic warming trend.”

http://asnews.syr.edu/newsevents_2012/releases/ikaite_crystals_climate_STATEMENT.html

 

[Trakar]

The scientist who wrote that abstract also has had this to say:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/scientist-sets-record-straight-on-mwp-research.html#commenthead

I actually pulled the quote from the university website, my apologies for duplicating some of your posting, your post was not appearing when I constructed my response.

 

[uke2se]

When will that be exactly? I predict that the temp is going to stay even or drop over the next 20 years. When will the CO2 FINALLY have an effect that is measurable?

Please provide the data that allows you to make that prediction.

Perhaps you conflate the word "predict" with the word "guess"?

 

[Westwall]

Nice to know your personal opinion, not sure of it's relevence though. It has even continued to rise over the last decade and a half, and it's like to carry on increasing since a number of cooling factors (in terms of surface air temperature) are coming to an end. Not to forget ocean heating too.

Has it? Most temperature records don't say that. Most temp series show the global temp flatlining for the last 10 to 12 years.

 

[Westwall]

It's interesting how deniers will use the LIA and the Medieval Warm Period to argue their point that climate change is just a cycle that we haven't altered, but when you try and present the entire story of climate change the rest of the science is somehow not valid.

That is why I like the videos that were posted.

The temperature records are reconstructed from ice cores and some of the first were done in Vostok Antarctica. There are numerous other cores listed in the link below as well including ocean sediment cores.

"As of 2003, the longest core drilled was at Vostok station. It reached back 420,000 years and revealed 4 past glacial cycles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg
from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core

Now the records go back well over 800,000 years

Looking at the large scale cyclical change over a long period puts the LIA in perspective.


As for the period from 1800 to the present I love that the Berkley Project was paid for by people trying to argue against the scientific consensus about climate change.

"The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study has created a preliminary merged data set by combining 1.6 billion temperature reports from 16 preexisting data archives."

http://berkeleyearth.org/study/

Analysis Charts

http://berkeleyearth.org/analysis/

Land Temperature Anomaly Video
http://berkeleyearth.org/movies/

Hope this helps.

Yes, we go back to the MWP, the RWP, the 6th Century Climate Catastrophe and the LIA bvecause they OCCURED. The AGW supporters try their darndest to disappear them from the historical record but they really did occur and they really were global.

The primary AGW claim is the current warming is unprecedented. If the historical record is indeed accurate, then "unprecedented" isn't accurate, is it.

 

[lomiller]

When will that be exactly? I predict that the temp is going to stay even or drop over the next 20 years.

Just what is the source of this "prediction"? Are you claiming you have psychic powers of some sort?

When will the CO2 FINALLY have an effect that is measurable?

It's been measurable for quite a while now.

 

[uke2se]

Has it? Most temperature records don't say that. Most temp series show the global temp flatlining for the last 10 to 12 years.

First, please post some of these temperature records that are flatlining.

Second, educate yourself as to how climate is different from weather and why climatologists use trends of 30 years and greater to determine long term trends, which is what we're talking about here.

Also, please don't cherry pick.

 

[uke2se]

Yes, we go back to the MWP, the RWP, the 6th Century Climate Catastrophe and the LIA bvecause they OCCURED. The AGW supporters try their darndest to disappear them from the historical record but they really did occur and they really were global.

It seems you have solved a scientific issue and proven that the MWP was really a global phenomenon. When can we expect to read your paper in a peer reviewed journal?

Or is this just more guessing on your part?

The primary AGW claim is the current warming is unprecedented. If the historical record is indeed accurate, then "unprecedented" isn't accurate, is it.

Yes, it is indeed accurate.

 

[Gwynpaine]

Lawson, Lomborg, the"cool" decade

Some people reject mainstream science, insisting that greenhouse damage will be not so great. They sometimes make common cause with people who profess to accept mainstream science while insisting that greenhouse damage will be not be so great as the economic cost of preventing it. In the attached clip the moderator stopped Bjorn Lomborg from immediately answering Monbiot’s divisive question “what do you make of Nigel’s [Lawson] contention there has been no further global warming this century?". But the clip is just a brief excerpt. Did Monbiot get his answer elsewhere in the debate?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c10D4kwnjco

 

[Trakar]

Has it? Most temperature records don't say that. Most temp series show the global temp flatlining for the last 10 to 12 years.

Perhaps you should start looking at official temperature records instead of blog graphs.

Try:

http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/T_moreFigs/

Or you can look at the explanation Forbes magazine presents

http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergl...eople-using-cherry-picked-climate-data/print/

This is even explained surprisingly well by politically skeptical researchers reviewing the scientific data:

http://berkeleyearth.org/faq/#stopped

Or, if you prefer to just look at peer-reviewed research as published in mainstream academic and field professional journals, we have things like:

Global temperature evolution 1979–2010
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/pdf/1748-9326_6_4_044022.pdf

There runs the water, it is up to you whether or not you choose to drink of it.