As Climate Worsens, a Cascade of Tipping Points Looms

Anytime you see specific periods of time compared to other specific periods of time it is a certain example of “how to lie with statistics”. The only meaningful way to evaluate statistics is with trend lines.

 

https://www.carbonbrief.org/human-emissions-will-delay-next-ice-age-by-50000-years-study-says
The earth won't plunge into a glacial period anytime soon; not for 50,000 years according to one study.


New research suggests that the impact of humans on the planet is pushing back when the Earth might descend into its next ice age.

While the Earth might have naturally cycled back into an ice age in 50,000 years’ time in the absence of emissions, we’re unlikely to see one for at least 100,000 years because of the CO2 we put into the atmosphere.


Your graph is only for Greenland ice core data and does not represent the global average. The global average has been determined through temperature reconstructions using proxy data, which

does include ice core data from Greenland and Antarctica, along with computer models of the Holocene.

The graphs below are from realclimate.org, "Paleoclimate: The end of the Holocene". http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/paleoclimate-the-end-of-the-holocene/

The shape of the curve is probably not surprising to climate scientists as it fits with the forcing due to orbital cycles. Marcott et al. illustrate the orbital forcing with this graphicrealclimate.org)

The Marcott reconstruction uses land and sea proxy data while the Pages 2K ( 2000 year) reconstruction uses only land proxy data.


Figure 1 Blue curve: Global temperature reconstruction from proxy data of Marcott et al, Science 2013. Shown here is the RegEM version – significant differences between the variants with different averaging methods arise only towards the end, where the number of proxy series decreases. This does not matter since the recent temperature evolution is well known from instrumental measurements, shown in red (global temperature from the instrumental HadCRU data). Graph: Klaus Bitterman


Figure 3 The last two thousand years from Figure 1, in comparison to the PAGES 2k reconstruction (green), which was recently described here in detail. Graph: Klaus Bitterman

 

Good deal. I ain't gonna do anything either.

 

This is a continuation from my previous article using realclimate.org as a source. The amount of summer incident solar radiation (insolation) on the Northern Hemisphere was greater during the earlier portion of the Holocene than it is today. That is because the earth's tilt was greater then and has been becoming more upright with time. One cycle lasts 41,000 years and will end in 8000 years with a minimum tilt of 22.1
degrees.

In the bottom panel we see the sunlight averaged over the year, as it depends on time and latitude. It declined strongly in the mid to high latitudes over the Holocene, but increased slightly in the tropics. In the Marcott reconstruction the global temperature curve is dominated primarily by the large temperature changes in northern latitudes (30-90 °N). For this, the middle panel is particularly relevant: the summer maximum of the incoming radiation. That reduces massively during the Holocene – by more than 30 watts per square meter. (For comparison: the anthropogenic carbon dioxide in the atmosphere produces a radiative forcing of about 2 watts per square meter – albeit globally and throughout the year.) The climate system is particularly sensitive to this summer insolation, because it is amplified by the snow- and ice-albedo feedback. That is why in the Milanković theory summer insolation is the determining factor for the ice age cycles – the strong radiation maximum at the beginning of the Holocene is the reason why the ice masses of the last Ice Age disappeared. (realclimate.org " Paleoclimate: The end of the Holocene)




Figure 2 Changes in incoming solar radiation as a function of latitude in December, January and annual average, due to the astronomical Milankovitch cycles (known as orbital forcing). Source: Marcott et al., 2013.

 

Yes the earth changes all the time, we where supposed to go into a new ice age instead we are headed into a C02 era of huge plants and animals

 

We are barely out of CO2 starvation from the last 2.5 million year ice age.

 

More like 6 decades.

 

No, you do not need to prepare for Armageddon
the end AIN’T near,
that don’t mean it’s not on its way

it reminds me of something that happened to me in the early 70’s. I had a well educated friend. I mentioned my concern that the Japanese were taking an increasing share of the auto market.... I felt this could become a significant problem. My friend dismissively laughed at my concern. He said. “... do you realized what an infinitesimally small part of the market they have?”

he was right, and at the moment so are you

 

Tipping points and their significance only become irrefutably clear in retrospect

 

So are you doing anything?

 

This is from nature.com, https://www.nature.com/articles/nature16494

Critical insolation–CO2 relation for diagnosing past and future glacial inception
The past rapid growth of Northern Hemisphere continental ice sheets, which terminated warm and stable climate periods, is generally attributed to reduced summer insolation in boreal latitudes1,2,3. Yet such summer insolation is near to its minimum at present4, and there are no signs of a new ice age5. This challenges our understanding of the mechanisms driving glacial cycles and our ability to predict the next glacial inception6. Here we propose a critical functional relationship between boreal summer insolation and global carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration, which explains the beginning of the past eight glacial cycles and might anticipate future periods of glacial inception. Using an ensemble of simulations generated by an Earth system model of intermediate complexity constrained by palaeoclimatic data, we suggest that glacial inception was narrowly missed before the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
The missed inception can be accounted for by the combined effect of relatively high late-Holocene CO2 concentrations and the low orbital eccentricity of the Earth7. Additionally, our analysis suggests that even in the absence of human perturbations no substantial build-up of ice sheets would occur within the next several thousand years and that the current interglacial would probably last for another 50,000 years. However, moderate anthropogenic cumulative CO2 emissions of 1,000 to 1,500 gigatonnes of carbon will postpone the next glacial inception by at least 100,000 years8,9


The information below , 2 paragraphs plus graphs, are from Yaleclimateconnections.org "Common Climate Misconceptions: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" They are writing about the anthropogenic pulse
of carbon dioxide emitted since the industrial revolution.

Using a combination of various methods, researchers have estimated that about 50 percent of the net anthropogenic pulse would be absorbed in the first 50 years, and about 70 percent in the first 100 years. Absorption by sinks slows dramatically after that, with an additional 10 percent or so being removed after 300 years and the remaining 20 percent lasting tens if not hundreds of thousands of years before being removed.

As University of Washington scientist David Archer explains, this “long tail” of absorption means that the mean lifetime of the pulse attributable to anthropogenic emissions is around 30,000 to 35,000 years.

 

Why would anyone want to remove any CO2 from the atmosphere ???

 

you know I was once asked that same question by another poster
It turned out I was doing a lot... so I went on an on about what I was doing
But Then the person who asked the question had a negative reaction because I waS actually doing a lot
So.., would you be satisfied with “yes I am...”
Or do you want a detailed answer?

 

How much will the rate of global warming be reduced by your actions ???

 

This is the same for glaciers. Within a few miles in Glacier Bay Alaska one glacier is receding whilst another is advancing. The reason for the difference is snow fall at the glacier source.

 

Bingo!

The loudest protesters are doing the least. The stats are clear on that.

 

I don't think that's what the poster meant by 'doing'. I could be wrong, of course.

 

It's more about what we DON'T do. Do you fly? Do you travel recreationally? Do you buy new clothes? Do you buy a new phone every year or so? Do you replace cars more than once every 10 years? Do you run airconditioning? Do you use a clothes dryer? Do you leave all your power outlets on 24/7? Etc etc.

 

My wife and I did not take a vacation for 19 years

No

Mostly not
I shop on eBay and in thrift stores

No
Last two phones were used on eBay
Previous phones were several years old

No
Every car I have owned has been over 10 years old when sold
I have only bought on new car in my life. I am 70 years old

No, we do not have air conditioning

Only I. Winter and when it is raining... otherwise we use a clothes line

Yes


Any other questions
We keep thermostat at 65 or under
Use all energy saving bulbs
Most of water bill is service charge
Power company tells us our usage compared to other customers
We are less than energy efficient homes of a similar size

My first job... I walked to work
And then sold my car and took the bus
My cars have always been fuel efficient models
Always use low flow shower heads
Have double pane windows and or storm windows
Drive to avoid braking, or rapid acceleration
No lawn
Compost and recycle
Etc etc etc

 

And why does it “change all the time”?

What causes climate change?

Climate is like your underwear

It does not change by itself

 

But around the world waaay more glaciers are retreating than advancing

 

They don't even watch all the glaciers so how would you know.

 

Wow

The whole physics of greenhouse gases just passed you by didn’t it?

 

CO2 is beneficial. Global warming is beneficial. There is no proof that the current increases in CO2 is causing the current global warming. But irregardless both are beneficial.

 

How many are retreating and how many are advancing ??? How many glaciers are there in the world ??? Are the ones which are retreating melting ???