Global warming - a few reasons you might want to be concerned

This by know means covers the gambit of reasons to be concerned and of course one can weight them as one chooses. But for those who have gotten beyond Subject A Climate Change and realize there is some sort of ghg connection but don't think it is that big a deal and/or are weak on some of the specifics, here are a few discussable points to consider, with some links, graphs and videos to help you along.

http://www.juancole.com/2013/08/screwed-climate-findings.html

 

More ifs and buts and candy nuts . I don't doubt plenty of these things happened during the dozens of other post glacial warming phases before anyone even noticed. We were fine then minus modern technologies and we'll be fine now. Today's warming is small potatoes in the great scheme of things and is almost certainly natural if one compares it with recent precedents

http://mclean.ch/climate/Ice_cores.htm

 

Frankly it's not clear to me whether the temperature measurements since 1880 are covered in the ice core graphs. The studies I've read indicate we are pretty close to the Holocene high temperature level and in the longer term the earth temperature is climbing at an unprecedented rate of course. I've also read that previous studies involving the higher ocean level during the previous interglacial period, over emphasized the contribution of Greenland and under emphasized the contribution of the Antarctic ice melt.

 

Taking the guesses and assumptions out of it I'd tend to go with what the ice cores are telling us. Here is a shorter scale 4000 year chart showing clearly just how inconsequential today's warming phase really is. Taking the temperature only from 1880 and claiming human culpability for it is disingenuous given the timescale of these events and given it reflects a recovery from the Little Ice Age which was one of the coldest events of the last 10,000 years. There's nothing whatsoever marking today's conditions as in any way unusual in either level or rate of change if you simply check the natural precedents

(Kobayashi 2011)

 

What a load of garbage.

When you take garbage, IN, guess what has to come OUT, or it builds up, really fast?

Ranting about the niceties of the current interglacial is for people, who like to look at forests on fire, through a microscope, without acknowledging, hey! The smell of smoke is in the air, eh?

For the last few million years, glacial cycles have been well-defined, with interglacial periods, lasting about 11K years, so our period should be ending, to gradually re-glaciate, similar, to the re-glaciation cycle, of 400,000 years ago.

But THAT isn't happening, even though solar radiance is down, and Milankovitch cycles favor re-glaciation.

Re-glaciation won't be happening, since GHGs are off the hook, and the Earth's magnetic field is decreasing by about 6%, per year, while the poles reverse, which lets in more radiation.

Re-glaciation won't be happening, since wasteful, stupid, stubborn humans want to accelerate waste and pollution.

The Mayans were right. The Earth will blacken, and people will perish, by flood.

What doesn't burn needs to learn, to swim, in oceans, which will become too acidic, for life.

People are already too stupid, too survive any real test, forthcoming.

Why think this? We passed 12/21/2012, a year ago, and idiots are still ranting their crap, while tipping points fly past.

 

Here you are only dealing with one proxy, a Greenland ice core one. Ice cores as I understand them are much better for longer period and not that good for short term stuff. Much better is averaging for many proxies which is done and explained here. It covers the entire Holocene period and includes some projection. In this case the AGW contribution becomes clear.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/paleoclimate-the-end-of-the-holocene/

http://www.realclimate.org/images//Marcott.png

 

Prove it ? Or does invoking Mayan superstition serve you better

Were this a climate model I would agree. Heads up it isn't

Well one of is is ranting anyway

And your point is ?

Really ? Lets hope they are wrong then because getting colder would be a really bad thing for the entire planet

If you say so

I;m all for tackling waste and pollution but I can't say I'm too keen on re glaciation. Do you think this will be a good thing if it happens ? If so why ?

So you feel that Invoking the the Mayans is making your case !!! I remember you now the quintessential shroud waving doomster . Meanwhile here's a reality check from the real world

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130531105415.htm

Scientists have long suspected that a flourishing of green foliage around the globe, observed since the early 1980s in satellite data, springs at least in part from the increasing concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere. Now, a study of arid regions around the globe finds that a carbon dioxide "fertilization effect" has, indeed, caused a gradual greening from 1982 to 2010.

In addition to greening dry regions, the CO2 fertilization effect could switch the types of vegetation that dominate in those regions. "Trees are re-invading grass lands, and this could quite possibly be related to the CO2 effect," Donohue said. "Long lived woody plants are deep rooted and are likely to benefit more than grasses from an increase in CO2."

 

Sorry but that's a rabidly activist blog presenting a climate modeled projection as fact

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/07/truth-about-realclimateorg.html

If you want more proxies you can find them here on this interactive map, but none of them help your case

http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.html

As for the Marcott study here is what the author himself said about its conclusions

The 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.

Nuff said

 

"Originally Posted by flogger View Post

Taking the guesses and assumptions out of it I'd tend to go with what the ice cores are telling us. Here is a shorter scale 4000 year chart showing clearly just how inconsequential today's warming phase really is. Taking the temperature only from 1880 and claiming human culpability for it is disingenuous given the timescale of these events and given it reflects a recovery from the Little Ice Age which was one of the coldest events of the last 10,000 years. There's nothing whatsoever marking today's conditions as in any way unusual in either level or rate of change if you simply check the natural precedents"

The Mayan predictions are from evaluation, of the Dresden Codex, which has pictures. Look 'em up. I have to shop, on Saturday.

The 5124 and 2/3 year bakkun cycle ended, on the Winter equinox, 2012. All that happened then is all the brown holes, in state capitals, and all the black holes, in D.C. lined up, with the black hole, in the center of our galaxy, so they doomed us. You're helping . . .

The GIGO reference is to your preoccupation, with ebbs and flows of surface temperature, in our current interglacial period, now ending.

You seem to have found a way, to roll around, via physical improbability. Head is up, somewhere improbable, it would seem . . .

You like to roll around, improbably fixated, on the current interglacial period, which has no relation, to what the greenhouse effect will do, or to what is happening, to our climate.

Like I wrote, already:

Re-glaciation isn't happening, and you won't admit a mass extinction is already happening. Die-offs are certain to claim enough humans, to depopulate affected areas, in our lifetimes, unless you happen to plan an early exit, for YOU, only, please . . .

Re-glaciation of land-locked glaciers would be a good thing. The release of perennial ice, into the warming climate system is causing storms to increase in frequency and severity, also variability, while drought, fire, and desertification claim heat-affected areas. Balance is not evident.

You remember who and what? You don't pay attention, unless other Log Cabin Republicans are trying to decide if Abe or Tricky was the cutest prez, or maybe you actually read that Heartland crock you just posted.

 

Classic !

Have you got secure and monitored accommodation for the night !

Where do you buy your crystal balls ?

Really. I'm just dying to know what you mean by that

I 'roll around' using verifiable evidence and not the Mayans !

Woe woe and thrice woe. The end is nigh !

Prove it ?

I'm not American so I don't care. The study in question speaks for itself.

Thanks for one of the most hilarious exchange's I have ever had with a climate zealot on any forum. You really could'nt make this stuff up

 

The current interglacial isn't your only dodge, is it.

Roll around some more, and figure out how to keep doing what you do, for free, without the Koch Bros. and Exxon, who defected, from Heartland.

You twaddle, aggressively, to hog bandwidth, in circle after stupid circle. The Mayans were a good bit brighter, than you ever could be.

Prove what? You twaddle, without punctuation: "Woe woe and thrice woe." You want to show up, on my 'dar. Python's back together, for Summer 2014.

You post spam, like a hippo scats. But I see you inhabit Scotland. Seen the 'no poofters' sketch? Palin follows it, with THE LUMBERJACK SONG.

I really do see, think, write, and spell a good bit better, than you do any of this, in the course, of your spam-spam-spam-spam, spam-spam, etc. Go Python; Scotcheroonie on a horse, disss-mount.

 

Stop it, just stop it no more please !! . My laptop can only stand so much coffee being sprayed on it !

 

Dealing with a handful of proxies worked for Mickey (Hide the Decline) Mann until recently, when the IPCC decided it was time to drop the Hokey Schstick, before it completely scuppered their ship.

 

Any chance of having that translated into English, please, without the excess commas?

 

So what does the new IPCC approved non hockey stick chart look like? And what vetted climate scientist has challenged the legitimacy of Mann's work for its time? Hockey Stick blathering is generally a tip off you are dealing with a denialist, as are hollering about the MWP and "Climategate. Denialists are predictable in their invocations of bogus nonsense. It's almost always the same recycled baloney.

 

I'm sure there must have been a reason for that last outburst, but .....

 

Que?

Commas go, before prepositions, for coherence, Senor.

I guess sorting clauses constitutes "work," to be avoided, by the likes, of YOU.

 

True, that.

CO2 leads temps, by degree.

This should be easy enough, to understand, but denialist corruption of all media complicates all communications, until they also try unprotected gay sex and needle sharing and cigarettes and driving, while texting, to failure.

After a time, denialists might get sued, off their box. Heard of COP 19? Denialism is already ending up, in courts, sez Re.

 

Anything on topic you'd like to share?

 

19:

I see your area of interest is actually limited, to: Quote Originally Posted by bobgnote View Post

"... unprotected gay sex and needle sharing and cigarettes and driving, while texting, to failure."

Your area of interest is unsafe, like ignoring warming and climate change. But admitting anything would mess with your intrigue, wouldn't it.

 

Re-glaciation isn't happening, and you won't admit a mass extinction is already happening. Die-offs are certain to claim enough humans, to depopulate affected areas, in our lifetimes,

I don't believe anyone has ever suggested that "re-glaciation" was on a timetable and was therefore late. The time periods for such things spans hundreds of years. Thus "isn't happening" could very well be "isn't happening yet".

What mass extinction "is already happening"? Please list those species that have gone extinct due to global warming (and therefore, manmade CO2). I do not believe even one has been identified - much less a "mass extinction". I look forward to being corrected on this point.

"In our lifetimes"? Please provide some support for that assertion.

The release of perennial ice, into the warming climate system is causing storms to increase in frequency and severity, also variability, while drought, fire, and desertification claim heat-affected areas.

The IPCC's latest report, AR5, disagrees with each of your above conclusions about storms, drought, fire, etc.

 

If someone can prove to me that carbon cannot hold in heat then I will no longer believe that man is causing global warming thus climate change.

 

The real problem now is that CO2 levels are so high....Highest in 800,000 years that this has caused the Temps. to rise to such a degree that Gel Form CH4...Methane is bubbling up from the ocean bottoms...bottoms of Arctic Circle Lakes and bubbling out of Permafrost as CH4 holds in heat in the atmosphere 71 TIMES greater than CO2.

AboveAlpha

 

Right, and methane is a more powerful GHG.

 

I will tell you when the people who deny Global Warming will start believing it to be a reality.

At the point so much energy in the form of heat and evaporated water vapor or clouds starts creating Category 6 and 7 Hurricanes and when F-5, 6 and 7 Tornado's become frequent and when the ocean becomes so warm huge algae blooms and Jellyfish exist upon the surface and below....THEN....they will take notice.

AboveAlpha