We only have two tipping points during this 2.5 million year long ice age. Going in to 100 thousand year glaciation and coming out.
Then earth got humans. Then, humans totally dominated earth, being able to make changes such as 600,000 square mile garbage patch in the Pacific Ocean, mass deforestation ... and, digging giggatons of ancient carbon and spewing it into the atmosphere.
The albedo feedback. Even if we achieved one of the lower emissions scenarios the Arctic might still go ice-free in the summer due to the albedo feedback. There is a mixed bag of evidence on this topic. My opinion is based mostly on the fact that the IPCC has bungled the Arctic sea ice extent predictions about as bad as it gets. It's observational evidence that the Arctic might be more sensitive than we thought. Of course the dramatic decline in the last several years could be a fluke. We'll probably know in the next 10 years.
And it's way too early to make any conclusions about the Antarctic. The record lows in 2016, 2017 and 2018 are odd when compared to the record highs of 2015, 2014, and 2013. I'd be willing to bet we're going to see a substantial rebound in sea ice in the southern hemisphere. Computer models predicted that southern hemisphere sea ice should increase through at least 2025. At least in the northern hemisphere observations are in the same direction as predictions, but in the southern hemisphere they were the complete opposite. That leads to me to believe 2016, 2017, and 2018 were highly anomalous and not likely to be the start of a new trend. But who knows.
Since we really don't have much information on sea ice extent or concentration other than anecdotal before the advent of satellites in 1979 there is really no way to tell any long term cycles. There is also more information studied on how ocean current changes affect arctic ice which is still a known unknown.
True. If the ocean currents in the Atlantic slow down like what is expected then this should shunt some of the heat transport off and allow Arctic sea ice to climb a bit. In fact, some of the studies I've seen suggest the dramatic declines we've seen up there in recent years will slow down and annual mean extents should stabilize through 2035 or so. I still think the first ice-free summer up there might occur around 2050, but it likely won't become common place until 2075 even with the higher emissions scenarios.
Things change. At any rate, assuming that all these dire predictions really do come about, I'm sure my great-grandchildren will muddle through somehow. I'll encourage my kids to marry Canadians so that they have more options on where to live. Of course. The change will likely be net positive. Well, I didn't pay much attention really. I assumed it was more nonsense that will go nowhere and whose only purpose is to convince morons to vote for socialists in the general election. Another stupid comment from the peanut gallery. Look — I asked iamanonman multiple times to state a conclusion to all the gibberish data he dumps on us regularly. At no point did he announce the conclusion "Mitigation is required" rather he simply said "The Earth is warming," a conclusion that is not supported by the data. The data confirm that the Earth has warmed. That's a given. If you want to make the argument that mitigation is required, feel free. But don't expect me to make the logical leap from: The Earth is all of 1ºF warmer to The Sky is Falling—The Sky is Falling!
Then stop asking the source and start asking why it's getting trapped. Yeah, like maybe fewer children will freeze to death in Puno next year. We can only hope. Sure, anyone can make predictions. Astrologers make predictions too. Some of them even come true. Stop right there, bub before I give you a speeding ticket. I asked you before what the conclusion of all of this was, and your conclusion was that the Earth is warming. As I've already pointed out, the data do not support that conclusion. However, you have now moved the goalposts. No longer is your claim that the Earth is warming. Now your claim is that humankind is responsible for said warming. This is the kind of bullcrap that I hate about Gaea worshippers — dishonesty. I asked you from the beginning what your conclusion was, but you refused to fess up about your real agenda. It's very simple. There are 476.2 quintillion atoms of carbon in one sheet of paper. So every sheet of paper buried prevents those carbon atoms from becoming carbon dioxide. To make a new sheet of paper, trees would need to be cut down. Said trees would have sucked all the carbon that they needed out of the atmosphere. You do know how photosynthesis works, don't you? Why not? You basically want polar bears to go extinct while mosquitoes flourish? So, in short, there's no reason to believe that the Earth is warming. There's no reason to believe that if it warms it would be a bad thing. And, if it turned out that it was a bad thing, we already have a method for preventing it. Cool.
And I believe in leprechauns. At any rate, if it has already reached tipping point levels, then there's nothing to be done. Party at my house!
Go us! Plants are so happy — they can grow much faster now that we have upped the carbon dioxide level. Optimum carbon dioxide levels for crops are 1500 ppm and we're barely hitting 500. Let's really kick this thing into high gear, people! Don't slack off!
In biologial systems you can't just talk about one element like that. More CO2 doesn't cover for a drought, for example. Increased warmth is allowing the survival of certain pests that aren't being killed in winter. And, more food in one place doesn't cover for less food somewhere else. One of the serious issues with the war in Syria was their extended drought that sent millions into the cities looking for food. Did the world send food? Of course not! We sent guns. In other words, agricultural change is a national security issue.
Imagine that! The government supplies water in Syria, and it magically runs out! Why, it can't be government incompetence and water subsidies leading to water overuse! No way! It must be global warming. Pay no attention to articles such as this one indicating that: Francesca de Châtel, a Middle East water expert, carried out extensive field work in rural Syria prior to the conflict and argues that the mismanagement of resources by the Assads is fundamental to understanding the conflict’s origins. “While climate change may have contributed to worsening the effects of the drought, overstating its importance is an unhelpful distraction that diverts attention away from the core problem: the long-term mismanagement of natural resources,” said de Châtel. “Furthermore, an exaggerated focus on climate change shifts the burden of responsibility for the devastation of Syria’s natural resources away from the successive Syrian governments since the 1950s and allows the Assad regime to blame external factors for its own failures.”
I wasn't asking what the source of the energy was that dominates the equilibrium temperature. I was asking you how you thought the Sun could be causing the warming (or the change in the equilibrium temperature). And the only reason I ask that is because I want you to do your own research and see for yourself if the Sun can explain the warming. A warmer Earth also means higher sea levels, GDP suppression, a lowering of Earth's carrying capacity for humans. This is all spelled out in the IPCC AR5 report. Molecular physics, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, fluid dynamics, oceanography, etc. are not the same thing as astrology. And yes, climate science is built around each one of these disciplines and then some. Which data does not support that conclusions? I am not aware of even a single dataset which computes a global mean temperature or oceanic heat content which refutes the conclusion that the Earth is warming. Literally...none. Oh no. You've misunderstood. I'm not only claiming that the Earth is warming. I'm also claiming that humans are responsible. The Earth is warming today AND humans are primarily responsible for it. And for what it's worth those aren't my claims. Those are the claims of the scientific consensus which I advocate for without shame. And just to make this clear...I'm not changing my mind from the claim that the Earth is warming to the claim that humans are responsible. I'm stating right up front that I believe both of those are happening at the same time. And to be honest...I'm not sure how anyone can reject the fact that the Earth is warming, but accept that it is happening because of humans. I mean...doesn't the later necessitate the former? What am I missing here? The planet is warming and humans are primarily responsible. And there is no conspiracy to fraudulently alter climate data. That pretty much sums up the conclusions I support as they relate to this thread. What agenda do you think I have? True. And this also increases the albedo of the planet which also puts a negative radiative forcing on the planet. But, do you really think enacting policies that encourage deforestation will be good for humanity in the long run? Deforesting the planet could end up being worse than a warming planet. I would definitely support legalization to fight malaria. That's been the arrangement in most of the developing world already. What I wouldn't support is the indiscriminate eradication of insect life. Aside from the fact that I don't think it would be possible especially with just DDT alone the ecological damage that would cause could very well be worse than a warming world. The Earth is definitely warming. That depends on your definition of "bad". Although it may be net beneficial to Canada scientists think it will be net harmful to the United States. I want the US to be filthy stinking rich and anything that gets in the way of that is bad in my opinion. What viable options can you proposal that would offset 3.7 W/m^2 of radiative forcing without causing another problem that is worse than global warming?
Something the IPCC does not consider in their contribution is Solar Activity. They only include TSI. Solar activity was on the rise preceding the rise of temperatures and is now heading to it's lowest activity since the Dalton minimum. That is why solar scientists predict coming cooling and could be the reason for the lack of any statistically relevant warming over the last two decades in the US. There is a known delay between solar changes and temperature changes on Earth and it is thought to be caused by the vast heat capacity of the oceans.
It's not binary like that. CO2 isn't the only thing that modulates vegetation growth rates. There are many other aspects. And besides not all types of plants thrive in CO2 rich environments. For example, C4 plants evolved specifically as a way of coping with lower CO2 concentrations, lower moisture, and lower temperatures. Yeah, some vegetation will thrive in warmer, wetter, more CO2 rich world, but not all vegetation. Corn is an example of a C4 crop that might not benefit a whole lot from higher CO2 concentrations if at all, but crop yields could be significantly affected by climate change.
Entertaining yet funny, this from Columbia University. Global warming only happens under Democratic Presidents.
Are you serious? You don't think that the Sun can warm things? I don't do research. The only people who do research are people who get paid to do research. A good amount of that research is federally funded. That's the point of science — it's how nerds try to make a living and get laid. IPCC is not a valid source. We've been over this. I'm sure it is. It's a regular circle jerk. First of all, the word data is the plural of datum. So, one does not say "data does" but "data do." Click here to read some examples of the proper way to use the word data, examples that occur on the ipcc.ch website. Are you sure you've read it? Because you don't seem to have gleaned the proper usage of the word. Second, the data support the idea that the Earth has warmed. This is not the same as saying that the Earth is warming. So you shamelessly advocate for political documents. Nice admission. You're overlooking the possibility that the Earth could be warming and something other than humans could be responsible. Have you considered algal blooms for example? Speculation. Statist. Haven't I basically made that clear? Another stupid comment. Surely you must know that trees conducive to paper production are cultivated. Paper companies don't just go out into the wild and cut down any old tree hoping that it will be good for making paper. Uhm… no. Legalization of DDT has not been the arrangement in most of the developing world. Sorry. And again, I ask the question: So what? So you oppose all forms of government? Great! We'll get along just fine!
No. I do not think the Sun can increase the equilibrium temperature of Earth on it's own during a period in which its total solar irradiance as declined. The science backs me up on this. If you disagree then just explain how you think it might work. Why? Because they cite their sources? The Earth is warming. The data absolutely supports this whether YOU believe it or not. No, I don't. I advocate for science. I pretty much hate hate politics. Yeah, I mean I didn't think they picked trees at random. Are you saying that paper production doesn't result in less trees overall than would exist otherwise? Ok, sure I'll take your word for it. Are you saying that if DDT were to be legalized that this would reduce global warming? That wasn't even remotely close to what I said. Governments help provide law and order and protect people from the harm that others might cause. These things are an essential element in creating a wealthy nation.
but both terms are correct...Global Warming is causing Climate Change...it isn't difficult to understand, who is at fault is it if they can't comprehend the science, the science community or those who who choose denial instead of information
Forgot to address this one...my agenda here is not statist. Like I said earlier I pretty much hate politics in general. And I have no political affiliation. I'm not even that passionate about any particular public policy regarding climate change. I realize there are a lot of different ways of dealing with it each with their own pros and cons. My goal is focused around making sure people understand the science of climate change so that they can make informed decisions about what if anything should be done about it. I'll happily discuss the various what-if scenarios regarding public policy so it's not like I'm completely apathetic about it. It's just that I don't know what the best solution is. I just know that the problem isn't going to go away by pretending like it doesn't exist.
This notion that we all want the climate to be in crisis is just ridiculous. Who WANTS the world to be in crisis? When I was young, the gas shortages of the 1970s had a huge impact on me. I became determined to help in the effort to end our reliance on oil because I didn't like our country being held hostage by OPEC. It showed just how vulnerable we are when it comes to petroleum supplies. On top of that we had horrible pollution in Los Angeles, back in those days. Things have drastically improved; so much so that they had to re-scale the air quality rating system. But I remember, for example, when a report came out showing that just living in the San Fernando Valley was like smoking a pack of cigarettes a day. Again, this made a HUGE impression on me. And I spent many days indoors because the air outside was too contaminated for play. This is the crux of it: I started getting into science and especially the science of energy. And it was clear that optional sources of energy, like natural gas and alternative fuels offered a way to end our vulnerability. To solve both the petroleum problem and the pollution problem seemed only a matter of years away given a national effort. But then something horrible happened. I can still remember first reading about it in Life Magazine. Scientists were starting to talk about a problem with CO2. And I was introduced to the potential for a green-house effect. As I read all of this I felt like someone hit me in the gut. EVERY option that had me excited as a potential path to energy independence, would only make this CO2 problem worse. In short, it was about the worst news I had ever heard. I knew even then that we are talking about the viability of the planet. It was as dangerous as nuclear war. And I didn't have a clue HOW we could ever solve this problem. There were no options. We could only hope the problem would go away; that it wasn't the problem some thought it could be. And the news never got any better. No one WANTS this to be true. But a lot of people don't want it to be true so badly that they will believe anyone telling them otherwise. Those of us who take science as our lead, make the logical choice to follow the best information we have; as communicated to us by the world's experts. Anyone who rejects this course of action is not choosing to follow the best information we have. They are the ones who have agenda. They simply don't want to believe it's true.
