Perspective

[CO. Hoosier]

Some things you may not have known about the earth's climate history:


The Snowball Earth, where polar ice sheets grow and meet at the equator, occurred about 800Ma and ended with increasing CO2 caused by volcanism.The change into an ice age occurs gradually, when more snow falls than melts, rather than a sudden cold snap.
Our current Ice AgeOur current geologic period[/I], the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets melt. This will happen whether or not humans accelerate it.

The final point shows once again the arrogance of humans. We think we cause everything and everything is for us. We are living in an ice age. The ice age will go away. We are living in an anomaly. That is the way it is and we can't change it. George Carlin:

"We're so self-important. So arrogant. Everybody's going to save something now. Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save the snails. And the supreme arrogance? Save the planet! Are these people kidding? Save the planet? We don't even know how to take care of ourselves; we haven't learned how to care for one another. We're gonna save the f*ckin' planet? . . . And, by the way, there's nothing wrong with the planet in the first place. The planet is fine. The people are f*cked! Compared with the people, the planet is doin' great. It's been here over four billion years . . . The planet isn't goin' anywhere, folks. We are! We're goin' away. Pack your shit, we're goin' away. And we won't leave much of a trace. Thank God for that. Nothing left. Maybe a little Styrofoam. The planet will be here, and we'll be gone. Another failed mutation; another closed-end biological mistake."









This post was edited on 2/10 2:15 PM by CO. Hoosier

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

My life as a climate lukewarmer.

I didn't write that, it's the title of a blog post by a guy named Matt Ridley. I read it the other day and it pretty much reflects my feelings about global warming, currently called "climate change," and the hysteria surrounding it. The hysteria from the clmate change alarmists is overwrought, especially considering the actual climate change that has been occuring versus the predicted climate change. It's not doing the alarmists' credibility much good when they default to the worst case predictions and the actual turns out to be closer to the least worrisome predictions. When they talk of more chatastrophic weather events at a time of some of the least catastrophic weather events for much of the world, it harms their credibility even further. I believe the temperature harmonization thing is also problematic for them as it requires us to believe that their models (assumptions) about temperature underlying their predictive models is correct when their predictions have not been especially accurate. I've said all along that we all want clean air, clean water, renewable energy, etc., so we should take responsible actions to reduce polution and pursue renewable energy on a reasonable pace. We should also not waste resources on trying to prevent something that most of even the most ardent believers in the worst case predictions believe it's too late to prevent. We should spend money instead on adapting to whatever the future climate turns out to be.

 

[Beeazlebub]

Re: My life as a climate lukewarmer.

Originally posted by Aloha Hoosier:
I didn't write that, it's the title of a difference between the terms "global warming" and "climate change".

"Global Warming" refers to the increased heat trapped within the climate system due to increases in the amount of greenhouse gases (mostly co2). "Climate Change" is the response of the climate system to the increased heat. They are related, but not to be used synonymously.

In regard to the rest of your post, it is as near to a fact as science can get that the earth continues to accumulate heat. The Berkeley Earth Project confirmed results from other agencies a few years ago. From the link:

"Berkeley Earth also has carefully studied issues raised by skeptics,
such as possible biases from urban heating, data selection, poor station
quality, and data adjustment. We have demonstrated that these do not
unduly bias the results."

In addition to the lower atmospheric temperature record, there are various indicators that strongly suggest related changes within the climate system.

As Richard Alley illustrates with this presentation, we simply cannot explain either the current warming or warming in the paleoclimate record without the contribution of heat-trapping CO2.

 

[hoot1]

My life in its final years

The whole global warming issue has little meaning to me as I will not be around to find out who is correct on this issue.

Furthermore given the extremely divided political atmosphere on this issue, I don't see government or the private sector coming up with any definitive policies which might cause anything to change.

Thus, if I were a great deal younger, I would just live one day at a time. Come to think of it, this is what I did when younger.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

As a long-time lurker you should know that . . .

I believe global warming is happening and that human activity is contributing to it. You'd also know that I think that the alarmists among the believers are using the worst possible case scenarios (and often exaggerating them) to promote economically harmful and politically impossible policies and misdirecting our policy focus.

 

[Univee2]

This is where a lot of us fall. The stridency and "economics be damned"

..in-your-face imminent doomsday scenarios are counter-productive.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I think that is right

While still not clear the, It seems that CO2 causes changes in heat rather than the other way around.

But that really doesn't matter, does it?

The point is this, we are living in the tail end of an ice age. There is no doubt about that. Ice ages are an anomaly. The normal condition for earth that there is no ice anywhere. This the earth is marching towards normalcy. The question is how much are human beings altering the trajectory of this march towards no ice. Nobody really knows.

I do know that information like this map from NOAA added to the global warming hysteria of the last 10 years or so without providing much relevant, or any important information.

The more current maps don't show very much warming and are consistent with the hiatus which has been written about. Once agin, the eye-blink time period is of little use. Because this site won't permit more than one image per post, I'll put the image in a second post

 

[CO. Hoosier]

NOAA image

 

[Beeazlebub]

Re: I think that is right

Originally posted by CO. Hoosier:
While still not clear the, It seems that CO2 causes changes in heat rather than the other way around.

But that really doesn't matter, does it?

Yes, actually it does. By burning fossil fuels, we're releasing long sequestered carbon (300MY BP) into the climate system at an incredibly high rate. It is the rate of change that is most alarming in the scientific community. Spacing 3-5C of warming over the course of 10k+ years would still be a geological blink of the eye, but we're on pace to pull that off in the next century. The implications of such warming to such things as agriculture, sea level, heat waves, and biodiversity are almost certainly negative.

The point is this, we are living in the tail end of an ice age. There is no doubt about that. Ice ages are an anomaly. The normal condition for earth that there is no ice anywhere. This the earth is marching towards normalcy. The question is how much are human beings altering the trajectory of this march towards no ice. Nobody really knows.

You're correct about the current ice age, but the concern here is for the possibility of altering the relatively stable climate over which human civilization has flourished. By increasing heat in the system from anthropogenic greenhouse gases, we bring climate responses in the form of positive feedback loops into play.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Agree with your basic recitiation of the science

and the feedback loops etc. Your statement of consequences is standard issue alarmism.

First of all; there is no reason to believe that climate should be "relatively stable". It never has been. It isn't. And it won't be.

Second, the sensitivity of the earth to CO2 is an area of legitimate scientific dispute. Looking at the models, it appears that the sensitivity has been overstated.

Third, CO2 isn't a bad thing.

Fourth, we aren't close to matching the heat waves of the 1930's even with more CO2

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

That stat doesn't mean very much.

That's weather, not climate.

goat

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Of course it's weather

the temperature history is weather too. Storms are weather too. Rain is weather too. Snow is weather too. Anomalies in all of these weather events have been tagged with being evidence of climate change.

 

[Beeazlebub]

Re: Agree with your basic recitiation of the science

Originally posted by CO. Hoosier:
and the feedback loops etc. Your statement of consequences is standard issue alarmism.

Interesting, so 3-5C would have what impact, exactly? Elaborate on my "alarmism"

First of all; there is no reason to believe that climate should be "relatively stable". It never has been. It isn't. And it won't be.

I didn't argue that it "should be", I argued that over the course of the past 10k or so year, it has been. Human civilization has developed in a relatively stable climate, and now our actions are forcing more heat to be held within the system. Consequentially, the climate during which our civilization developed will be no more. Will we go extinct? No, that would be "alarmism", but to imply that it will be business as usual in the way we grow food, develop our cities, or interact with biodiversity is myopic.

Second, the sensitivity of the earth to CO2 is an area of legitimate scientific dispute. Looking at the models, it appears that the sensitivity has been overstated.

Which models are you talking about? CO2 and lower atmospheric temperature are not linear, as there are many delays in the system, due mostly to oceanic heat capacity.

Third, CO2 isn't a bad thing.

The global warming and resulting climate change from increased anthropogenic CO2 is most certainly a "bad" thing for human civilization.

Once again, it is the rate of change. If you're interested in learning more, check out the lecture from Dr. Richard Alley linked previously in this thread.

Fourth, we aren't close to matching the heat waves of the 1930's even with more CO2

Heat waves in the United States. Given that the USA comprises about 2% of the planet, 1930s heat waves are irrelevant when discussing a global phenomenon.

Even so, the number of record highs compared to record lows in the USA is increasing. The 2000s have seen record highs outpace record lows at a 2:1 ratio.

This post was edited on 2/10 9:09 PM by Beeazlebub

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Data can be more than one thing.

Temperature records are data. When they are used to measure local frequencies of heat waves, they are being used to examine the weather. When they are used to build a record of mean global temperatures over many years, and then compared to reconstructed temperatures from the planet's distant past, they are being used to examine the climate.

Just as I didn't claim the record heat we had back in 2012 was evidence of global warming, I hope you wouldn't call last year's bad winter as evidence against it. Your heat-wave spike falls into that category.

goat

 

[CO. Hoosier]

We are going down a numbe of rabit holes here

you (collectively) are begging most of the important questions with this remark:

"The global warming and resulting climate change from increased anthropogenic CO2 is most certainly a "bad" thing for human civilization."[/B]

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Can't have it both ways

When global warming alarmists claim that heat waves, hurricanes, tornadoes, draughts, and other weather anomalies are evidence of climate change, you (collectively) should not be heard to say the the reduction in the frequency of these events is irrelevant.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I don't make those claims.

I'll leave hurricanes and droughts aside, since I've heard reputable scientists explain how they might be connected to climatic changes*. As for heat waves, tornadoes and other local-scale weather phenomena, I'd need to hear actual scientists claim a connection before I gave it credence. As far as I know, only politicians make those claims, and, quite frankly, I've never even heard one of them do that. The only time I've heard the argument that global warming causes heat waves is when skeptics are attacking it.

goat

* Recognizing, of course, that any increase in the frequency or severity of such phenomena might very likely only be evidence of their own existence.

 

[Beeazlebub]

Re: We are going down a numbe of rabit holes here

Originally posted by CO. Hoosier:
you (collectively) are begging most of the important questions with this remark:

"The global warming and resulting climate change from increased anthropogenic CO2 is most certainly a "bad" thing for human civilization."[/B]

I would suggest reading the IPCC Fifth Assessment report on impacts starting on page 54.

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/docs/WGIIAR5-IntegrationBrochure_FINAL.pdf

 

[CO. Hoosier]

That's the problem

Only politicians, and the other participant in this thread, make these claims. President Obama is a particular case in point. Do you think he:

1. Made it up?
2. Was so advised by his political advisors?
3. Or advised by a science advisor who is more of an advocate that scientist?

This stuff is why the debate is so difficult.

 

[Beeazlebub]

On Heat Waves

Couple of journal articles regarding heat waves.

Heat waves and other weather extremes.

and

More Intense, More Frequent, and Longer Lasting Heat waves in the 21st century

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I'm not sure what you're talking about.

I've never heard Obama say anything about climate change that wasn't just a recitation of the basic talking points signed off on by scientists. It's also irrelevant to the broader question: "Is anthropogenic global warming real?" What a politician may or may not have said doesn't mean squat to me, and you bringing it up really just avoids the important discussion. Look at this subthread. We are now debating who says what bad arguments about climate change, and avoiding what got me started in the first place - that you made a bad argument about climate change. Localized heave wave anomalies are evidence of next to nothing with regards to global climate trends.

It's also worth pointing out here that there is a difference between connecting weather to climate change and using it as evidence of climate change. It's absolutely true that rising global temperatures would be likely to increase the number of heat waves and decrease the number of cold snaps*, at least on a global scale. But heat waves happen, anyway, and any local increase in their frequency is evidence of nothing but the fact that it was hot.

goat

* Measured against historical averages, of course.

 

[Beeazlebub]

Re: That's the problem

Originally posted by CO. Hoosier:
Only politicians, and the other participant in this thread, make these claims. President Obama is a particular case in point. Do you think he:

1. Made it up?
2. Was so advised by his political advisors?
3. Or advised by a science advisor who is more of an advocate that scientist?

This stuff is why the debate is so difficult.
I've made no such claims in this thread, but they are outlined in the literature if you take the time to look. I deal in climate science every day, and it is becoming increasingly clear in the literature that heat waves in particular are becoming both more frequent and more severe.

Another link from the AMS:

At the global scale, trends in extreme temperature events have been
found to be outside the bounds of unforced natural variability, leading
to a conclusion that they are anthropogenically driven.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

That's different.

Thanks for those links, but that's a different animal than what I'm talking about. If scientists predict more heat waves in certain regions, and then test and find those heat waves, that's just good research. I'm talking about the people who take a particular individual weather event or very localized anomaly and use it as evidence for or against AGW, like COH's heat wave spike in the 30's. All that proves is that we had some rough summers in the 30's.

goat

 

[Beeazlebub]

Re: That's different.

Originally posted by TheOriginalHappyGoat:
Thanks for those links, but that's a different animal than what I'm talking about. If scientists predict more heat waves in certain regions, and then test and find those heat waves, that's just good research. I'm talking about the people who take a particular individual weather event or very localized anomaly and use it as evidence for or against AGW, like COH's heat wave spike in the 30's. All that proves is that we had some rough summers in the 30's.

goat

Indeed, that's simply cherry picking, much like using 1998 as a starting point for temperature and arguing that warming has stopped..

Trends in the frequency and severity of heat waves is important to any discussion regarding impacts to human civilization, which seems to be the focus of my discussion with COH above.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Re: That's different.

I've always liked this graphic, even if there is some implied snark:

 

[Beeazlebub]

Re: That's different.

"Up the down escalator". I've used it in class the past couple of semesters.

That site is excellent as well, especially in detailing scientific responses to the most popular bogus arguments.

 

[NPT]

Well goat

He links floods and drought to climate change in this short video or are you saying that floods and droughts are not weather events.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Ha . . . .

People who like this graphic are the problem. See.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Ther is no such thing as a "world climate" is there?

Doesn't "climate" apply only to a region or specific locality? Climates change all the time, and much of it has to do with human activity; but CO2 isn't the most important forcing. Such as the impact of central air condition in Phoenix. The climate in Glacier Bay changed remarkably in 100 years or so and nobody really knows why.

What is your specialty and what do you do in climate science every day?

The AMS quote is a meaningless word pile. It doesn't say or mean anything.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

The climate change debate absolutely

has a scientific component and a political/policy component. Those get all mashed up by scientists and politiicans. You have scientists talking the politics of global warming and you have politicians talking about the science of global warming. Trying to separate the two has nothing to do with who is talking, you must look at content.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

I'm sure you have a lot of final years left!

You're the most gentlemanly poster we have and we need you here for many years to come.

Edit note: why would auto-correct change "here" to "hear?"

This post was edited on 2/11 2:37 PM by Aloha Hoosier

 

[iubud]

Good Information

I am an Engineer and study a lot of data. I haven't studied climate change / global warming because it has become more of a political issue than science. I could probably collect data to support the earth is cooling or warming. Thank Al Gore for showing the world how to profit from global warming.

Is the earth warming? In the short span we have been recording temperatures it might be depending on what measurements you include to determine the average temperature. In the course of millions of years, there might be spans where the temps tick up and fall slightly as the earth warms or cools. What does that mean? I agree with this article that there have been cycles between ice ages and times of warming followed by new ice ages. This means the earth is in a constant period of warming or cooling. Think of a very long bell curve that needs to be have a scale of 10 million years to look like a curve instead of a flat line.

Is man causing a possible warming? No, probably not by ourselves. Since the process has been going on before man arrived, there would be other causes that contribute to high levels of CO2. Automobiles and factories are what man has created to add to the output into the environment, but ancient times likely had even greater sources..

Imagine the US covered in great forests before man started carving out areas to farm, build cities, and harvest trees to build cities. The same lightning storms that set off fires today were present in ancient times. It takes an army of men and equipment to stop these fires. The forests these fires start in today are often separated by towns and fire breaks from man's development.

Imagine the same fires that we struggle to extinguish today in a much more contiguous forest without breaks and burning on its own. Wind direction, rains, wide rivers, and running out of fuel for the fire is the only thing that would stop them. I could see one fire burning for months and years, adding more CO2 than people could ever do. Add the volcanic activity on land and under the oceans. All this was happening without man being around.

I support efforts to find alternative fuels, conservation, and uses of non-polluting sources of energy. In time, these will become everyday items. I don't believe in forcing the technology out before it is ready. I don't support using scare tactics to force a political agenda and using something that is going to happen anyway to justify it. Maybe we should just hold our breath!

 

[SSB]

That is very true. I recently heard a politician

commenting that melting ice wouldn't change sea levels any more than the melting of ice in your Coke would cause it to spill over. I was embarrassed for the guy.