The Most Extra New Super Global Warming Thread

[AMosely]

I was just reading through this document. I can't believe this passed through the White House - five years ago most of this material would have been censored. Either the administration's political temperment with regard to the broader concept of global warming has changed or life on Earth is truly going to change in the coming decades. I'm willing to be that it's a little of both, which is hardly reassuring but at least it begins to produce a level ground from which to start addressing some very real problems (as opposed to foolishly debating their existence).

Is there anyone left proclaiming that this is a non issue, or furthermore that human impact and/or effect is insignificant? If so, it's time to get some Q-tips and/or eye glasses.

Read this document. It's up-to-date, well built and well referenced.

Page 70:

Originally Posted by OSTP NSTC Report

There is clear evidence that human-induced warming of the climate system is widespread (Hegerl et al., 2007). Studies to detect climate change and attribute its causes using patterns of observed changes in temperature show clear evidence of human influences on the climate system (Karl et al., 2006). Discernible human influences extend to additional aspects of climate, including ocean warming, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes, and wind patterns (Hegerl et al., 2007).

Page 102:

Originally Posted by OSTP NSTC Report

Models suggest that human-induced climate change will alter the prevalence and severity of many extreme events such as heat waves, cold waves, storms, floods, and droughts. Projections of global temperature from the IPCC (Meehl et al., 2007) show that it is very likely that heat waves will become more intense, more frequent, and longer lasting in a future warm climate, whereas cold episodes are projected to decrease significantly. Meehl and Tebaldi (2004, in Meehl et al., 2007) found that the pattern of future changes in heat waves—which shows the greatest intensity increases over western Europe, the Mediterranean, and the southeastern and western United States—is related in part to circulation changes resulting from an increase in greenhouse gases.

[Kerostasis]

Story: New Ice Core Analysis shows past global warming 40 times faster than today's global warming, 15,000 years ago.

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

Story: New Ice Core Analysis shows past global warming 40 times faster than today's global warming, 15,000 years ago.

Well,

1) The article doesn't talk about global temperatures but temperatures in the northern hemisphere.

2) Temperature recreations going back >10,000 years are from ice cores either from Greenland or Antarctica. I don't know how the author makes a definitive statement about temperature changes over the whole norther hemisphere with only samples from Greenland.

3) I don't know where you get "40 times faster". From the article:

...about a 12 degree Celsius spike in just 50 years...
...the UN panel predicts will range from 1.8 to 4 degrees C this century...

That is, at most, 13 times faster.


But I'm curious Kerostasis, how do you think this is relevant to this discussion?

bkelly

[leejo]

Here you go: A complete list of things caused by global warming

[Kerostasis]

Originally Posted by bkelly

Well,

1) The article doesn't talk about global temperatures but temperatures in the northern hemisphere.

2) Temperature recreations going back >10,000 years are from ice cores either from Greenland or Antarctica. I don't know how the author makes a definitive statement about temperature changes over the whole norther hemisphere with only samples from Greenland.

3) I don't know where you get "40 times faster". From the article:

...about a 12 degree Celsius spike in just 50 years...
...the UN panel predicts will range from 1.8 to 4 degrees C this century...

That is, at most, 13 times faster.


But I'm curious Kerostasis, how do you think this is relevant to this discussion?

bkelly

1,2: It's not my job to peer-review scientific studies before they make it to the newspaper. I suppose it should be someone's job, but it's hard to tell how well that job is being done these days.

3: I get 40 times because I am using observed numbers on actual warming over the previous 50 to 100 years, while you are using theoretical numbers on predicted warming over the next 50 to 100 years. Either way, its damn fast.

4: I was just following the recent pattern of activity for this thread for the last few pages, which is to post an article about some discovery that seems relevant to the topic without actually advancing any theories related to that discovery.

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

1,2: It's not my job to peer-review scientific studies before they make it to the newspaper. I suppose it should be someone's job, but it's hard to tell how well that job is being done these days.

That doesn't fly for point one. You were the one who expanded the estimate to the entire globe.

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

3: I get 40 times because I am using observed numbers on actual warming over the previous 50 to 100 years...

Which is like comparing the lap time of one NASCAR driver to the time it took another driver's crew to push his car onto the track.

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

4: I was just following the recent pattern of activity for this thread for the last few pages, which is to post an article about some discovery that seems relevant to the topic without actually advancing any theories related to that discovery.

(emphasis mine)

Exactly, hence my question. Why do you think this article is relevant?

bkelly

[Kerostasis]

Originally Posted by bkelly

That doesn't fly for point one. You were the one who expanded the estimate to the entire globe.

I was using "global warming" as a stand-in for "climate change", as they are interchangeable in common usage even if somewhat different in technical meaning. Feel free to reverse the substitution.

Which is like comparing the lap time of one NASCAR driver to the time it took another driver's crew to push his car onto the track.

As opposed to, say, comparing one driver's lap time to the time his opponent thinks he might get tomorrow? When was the last time you saw a race-winner being decided on that criteria?

(emphasis mine)

Exactly, hence my question. Why do you think this article is relevant?

bkelly

That's for the audience to decide. Since you've already started attacking the results and implications of the article, my guess would be you already think those implications are relevant? Of course, you're free to explain why you think it's completely irrelevant if you prefer.

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

That's for the audience to decide.

It's up for the audience to decide why you think the article is relevant? Are you kidding me?

You're obviously not interested in having an actual discussion here.

bkelly

[leejo]

Bkelly, I don't see how it's NOT relevant, so I'm with Kero here. Why don't you think it's relevant?

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by leejo

Why don't you think it's relevant?

I think the article is very relevant. In fact, I think the article applies to the discussion in may different ways and on many different levels.

I was asking for Kerostasis' perspective so I could understand how he saw it and we could start discussing from there. I'm not going to start lecturing on the whole period like I did with GhostintheShell.

bkelly

[Kerostasis]

Originally Posted by bkelly

It's up for the audience to decide why you think the article is relevant? Are you kidding me?

You're obviously not interested in having an actual discussion here.

bkelly

You think that's frustrating? Try arguing against someone who wants to convince you that Dandelions are evil someday. >.>

I'm perfectly fine with having an actual discussion, but I'm not going to make the extra effort to draw you personally into discussions that you don't want to support.

[leejo]

Originally Posted by bkelly

I think the article is very relevant. In fact, I think the article applies to the discussion in may different ways and on many different levels.

I was asking for Kerostasis' perspective so I could understand how he saw it and we could start discussing from there. I'm not going to start lecturing on the whole period like I did with GhostintheShell.

bkelly

So, you found the article relevant. May I ask which are the many ways in which you find the article relevant and on which levels so that we can start discussing it from there? I'd hate to think that you were being disingenuous with this post and that you are really the one "not interested in having an actual discussion here."

[bkelly]

Originally Posted by leejo

May I ask which are the many ways in which you find the article relevant and on which levels so that we can start discussing it from there?

All right, from the top of my head, reasons I think this article is relevant include:

* It shows that granularity of ice core data is astounding.
* It is evidence that climatic tipping points are real and difficult to predict or understand.
* It suggests the possibility that humanity would have trouble keeping up if the climate hits a tipping point such as this.
* It gives an example of how complicated climate can be with with short term effects trumping long range effects.
* It suggests that anthropogenic global warming won't be a simple, linear climb in temperatures but may have quick swings, both up and down.
* It describes a time that is almost slam dunk proof that anthropogenic global warming is real and a problem.

Originally Posted by leejo

I'd hate to think that you were being disingenuous with this post and that you are really the one "not interested in having an actual discussion here."

Leejo, you really should go back and read this thread that you started.

bkelly

[Kerostasis]

So I notice you slipped a little non-sequitur in there at the end, that isn't at all straightforward without some intermediate step that you have yet to mention. Rather than ask you to explain it, which I'm certain you will do whether or not I ask, I'll just present an alternate perspective on why this finding is relevant.

This information does not, on its own, substantially advance the case either for or against anthropogenic warming in our own time, coming as it does from an era in which anthropogenic causes had not yet materialized. However, by illustrating the potential for extremely rapid climate shifts prior to industrialization, it removes the (already weak) potential argument that current warming must be anthropogenic because it is "faster than anything we've seen before".

[Switch]

Resource: How To Talk To A Global Warming Skeptic
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0..._n_108040.html