Image: Dan Saelinger
In Brief
- Scientists thought that if planetary warming could be kept below two degrees Celsius, perils such as catastrophic sea-level rise could be avoided.
- Ongoing data, however, indicate that three global feedback mechanisms may be pushing the earth into a period of rapid climate change even before the two degree C “limit” is reached: meltwater altering ocean circulation; melting permafrost releasing carbon dioxide and methane; and ice disappearing worldwide.
- The feedbacks could accelerate warming, alter weather by changing the jet stream, magnify insect infestations and spawn more and larger wildfires.
More In This Article
-
Overview
In-Depth Report: Extreme Weather and Climate Change
-
Photo Album
Earth May Be Warming Even Faster Than Expected [Slide Show]
-
Photo Album
Irene's Impact: The Hurricane/Tropical Storm in Pictures
-
Overview
Factbox: Rare factors could make Hurricane Sandy highly destructive
-
Video
Instant Egghead: How hurricanes Form? [Video]
Over the past decade scientists thought they had figured out how to protect humanity from the worst dangers of climate change. Keeping planetary warming below two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) would, it was thought, avoid such perils as catastrophic sea-level rise and searing droughts. Staying below two degrees C would require limiting the level of heat-trapping carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to 450 parts per million (ppm), up from today's 395 ppm and the preindustrial era's 280 ppm.
Now it appears that the assessment was too optimistic. The latest data from across the globe show that the planet is changing faster than expected. More sea ice around the Arctic Ocean is disappearing than had been forecast. Regions of permafrost across Alaska and Siberia are spewing out more methane, the potent greenhouse gas, than models had predicted. Ice shelves in West Antarctica are breaking up more quickly than once thought possible, and the glaciers they held back on adjacent land are sliding faster into the sea. Extreme weather events, such as floods and the heat wave that gripped much of the U.S. in the summer of 2012 are on the rise, too. The conclusion? “As scientists, we cannot say that if we stay below two degrees of warming everything will be fine,” says Stefan Rahmstorf, a professor of physics of the oceans at the University of Potsdam in Germany.
This article was originally published with the title Global warming: Faster Than Expected?.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
141 Comments
Add CommentNo, i expected it to happen fast..
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen you are trying to maximize on fear to get laws passed, to change behavior, to make money, or to gain greater control, it helps to create a sense of urgency where none exists by exploiting plausibility.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe British Met Office says that no warming has happened
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissince 1997. So the answer to the question posed in this article is no.
Time to move on SCIAM. You're beating a dead horse.
An earlier commenter states the British Met Office says there has been no warming since 1997. Being amazed that this erroneous data would be posted anywhere, I checked the site and found the following: "The three independent global-average temperature records show that there has been warming in the Earth's climate since pre-industrial times. The warming has been particularly rapid since the 1970s. The records also clearly show each decade since the 1970s has been successively warmer than the last, including the decade since 2000. Changes in temperature observed in surface data records are corroborated by measurements of temperatures below the surface of the ocean, by records of temperatures in the troposphere recorded by satellites and weather balloons, in independent records of air temperatures measured over the oceans and by records of sea-surface temperatures measured by satellites. Indirect evidence of warming can be seen in the reductions in Arctic sea-ice, sea-level rise, reduction in glacier volume and in phenological records, for example the dates on which leaves, flowers and migratory birds appear." The posters who are disparaging this article and trying to find something to back up their crazy ideas about global warming should go back to watching Fox News and reading publications from Heartland, where lies such as this are the norm.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article contains a number of untruthful assumptions or statements. As an example:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis comment from the article- “The latest data from across the globe show that the planet is changing faster than expected.”
The comment is an outright lie. In truth, the rate of warming has been much less than was forecasted in the climate models and the impact of the warming has been much less than was forecasted by those who feared a change in conditions. http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/observations-v-models-model-weather/
Yes the arctic ice melted more this summer for less than 3 months this summer than it had since 2007. Is that some type of problem? http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/04/nsidc-confirms-wuwt-ice-forecast/
Sea level is NOT rising at an alarming rate. It is rising at the non-alarming rate of less than 1 foot per century. Why does this publication promote unscientific articles?
Actually, you are the one who is lying. There has been no indication in the change in the rate of sea level rise has there? It has been rising at a rate of less than 1 foot per century. BTW I am not a conservative fox news watcher, but a scientist who looks at actual data
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSisko: "I am ... a scientist..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReally? What research have you published lately?
The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are loosing mass at an accelerating rate; where do you expect this water to end up?
Arno, Shoshin, and Sisko like to read blogs and newspaper articles, like those by Rose from the Daily Mail, which have no actual research backing, and choose to believe what they say over actual research based on real world observations. It's funny that these same people who are all over the British researchers for 'climategate' and claim that their data is invalid, use that same data set to try to make a point, even if that point is not supported by the data itself.
Why do they use that data? Because it has a cool bias compared to other data sets.
Why do they make the claim that warming has stopped? Because they want to believe it and they aren't very good at math. The carefully select the period to give the lowest upward trend they can (and it is still upward), and ignore everything else.
Not a scientist. Not a fan of Fox News.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo read (comprehension is another question for another day).
Ice is melting in the Artic no doubt but I read from another respected publication sea ice in the antartic is expanding.
Global warming? I don't know but from my simplistic observation Mother Nature likes to balance things out. And she doesn't care if it benefits human beings.
A few years ago the meme was, 'no warming since 1995'. A few more years of data have come in, and now the meme is, 'no warming since 1998'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn fact, there has been warming, they are just choosing time periods too short to pass the significance test, for either cooling or warming.
"...atmospheric carbon dioxide just kept on increasing and yet was powerless to cause any of that warming that we are constantly warned about. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYet, it was powerful enough to prevent any cooling that would normally have occurred because of a double-dip La Nina, low solar output, and increasing aerosols from Asia. This year ENSO has swung to a neutral state, solar output has risen to near average levels, and it seems that 2012 is on track to be a very hot year.
Chris
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI work in the area of flir imaging and do not publish papers available to the general public as a part of that effort.
The untruthful article states that "global warming is happening faster than expected?" Do you believe that is accurate? I am not questioning whether it is occuring. I am questioning the rate that it is occuring at however.
I see all the naysayers are up very early
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCircular Argument in your post.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDon't worry, though. In Alarmist world, you are spot on. In science... yeah.. not so much.
"""The British Met Office says that no warming has happened since 1997. So the answer to the question posed in this article is no."""
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLie. This statement has been debunked so many times that it isn't even funny.
"""The article contains a number of untruthful assumptions or statements. As an example:"""
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLie.
"""This comment from the article- “The latest data from across the globe show that the planet is changing faster than expected.”"""
Is true.
"""The comment is an outright lie. In truth, the rate of warming has been much less than was forecasted in the climate models and the impact of the warming has been much less than was forecasted by those who feared a change in conditions. http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/observations-v-models-model-weather/"""
Lie, lie, outright lie, biased source.
"""Yes the arctic ice melted more this summer for less than 3 months this summer than it had since 2007. Is that some type of problem? http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/04/nsidc-confirms-wuwt-ice-forecast/"""
Yes. Ever hear of polar bears?
"""Sea level is NOT rising at an alarming rate. It is rising at the non-alarming rate of less than 1 foot per century. Why does this publication promote unscientific articles? """
Lie; 1 foot per century is EXTREMELY worrying. 1 inch per century is quite fast; 1 foot per century is catastrophic.
"""I work in the area of flir imaging and do not publish papers available to the general public as a part of that effort. """
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen you're not a scientist. Real scientists don't hide behind paywalls.
"""The untruthful article states that "global warming is happening faster than expected?" Do you believe that is accurate? I am not questioning whether it is occuring. I am questioning the rate that it is occuring at however."""
I am absolutely confident that anthropogenic global warming is happening at a terrifying rate, and faster than expected. If you've got a problem with that, let's have a flame war.
"""Actually, you are the one who is lying. There has been no indication in the change in the rate of sea level rise has there? It has been rising at a rate of less than 1 foot per century."""
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou just contradicted yourself.
"""BTW I am not a conservative fox news watcher, but a scientist who looks at actual data"""
Yeah, and I'm the Dear Leader of North Korea, with ten million cardboard cutouts that look like soldiers to do my bidding.
Do you seriously believe that we will take you seriously when you say that?
Is there global warming and is it due to anything mankind does? No friggin idea as nobody can now push through the garbage science and media hype.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, if the summer in the USA is not as hot next year it means global cooling....no, it just won't be a story.
No 'extreme' weather in most of the world this year so it means....nothing as it's dismissed as 'weather'.
The Global warming groupies continue to make a mockery of climate change by grasping as any anecdotal evidence and turn it into a mountain.
Chris G
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow do you like having someone such as Bird/tree/dinosaur/etc. geek being a person to justify the reasonableness of your position? LOL
Hey hooter... LOOK over there... Something shiny... Ooooh!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Sisko,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFunny how the peer reviewed science does not substantiate your claim, eh?
Sea-Level Rise from the Late 19th to the Early 21st Century:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/h2575k28311g5146/
From the abstract: "We estimate the rise in global average sea level from satellite altimeter data for 1993–2009 and from coastal and island sea-level measurements from 1880 to 2009. For 1993–2009 and after correcting for glacial isostatic adjustment, the estimated rate of rise is 3.2 ± 0.4 mm year−1 from the satellite data and 2.8 ± 0.8 mm year−1.
And: "There is considerable variability in the rate of rise during the twentieth century but there has been a statistically significant acceleration since 1880 and 1900 of 0.009 ± 0.003 mm year−2 and 0.009 ± 0.004 mm year−2, respectively. Since the start of the altimeter record in 1993, global average sea level rose at a rate near the upper end of the sea level projections of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Third and Fourth Assessment Reports."
And then we have the fact that the 20th century sea level rise of 2mm per year is anomalous for the past 8,000 years. Here is a detailed report on sea level for the past two thousand years:
Climate related sea-level variations over the past two millennia:http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/KempetalPNAS11.pdf
From the abstract: "Sea level was stable from at least BC 100 until AD 950. Sea level then increased for 400 y at a rate of 0.6 mm/y, followed by a further period of stable, or slightly falling, sea level that persisted until the late 19th century. Since then, sea level has risen at an average."
So in summary:
Sea level rise has increased to 3.2mm per year from the the 20th century average of 2mm per year. The 20th century average itself is anomalous for the past several thousand years. All of this is documented by empirical data that has been published in peer reviewed journals of high standing.
That's nonsense. The Daily Mail incorrectly reported the Met Office. Check your facts. http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Met Office knows global warming continues. The Daily Mail report was in error. http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@. johnhaverysamuel,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShoshin, has been corrected about that erroneous report with the exact same link that you gave about four other times now. I do not think he is interested in accuracy.
Shoshin believes that evidence is for little people.
Sisko,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou claimed sea level rise is not a problem and implied that it will continue at the current rate. I asked where you thought the accelerating loss from the ice sheets would end up.
And...?
Come on, put that scientific mind of yours to work and tell us whether or not water flows downhill.
Once again, a global denier cites evidence that turned out to be completely false:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"According to the Daily Mail on October 13, UK Met Office data showed global warming stopped 16 years ago. Not so, said Met Office one day later."
http://earthsky.org/earth/uk-met-office-responds-global-warming-did-not-stop-16-years-ago
"in fact, in a report released by the National Climatic Data Center this week, global land and ocean surface temperatures for the month of September 2012 tied with 2005 as the warmest September on record"
So my question to you guy is that, does the Koch Foundation pay you to spew lies by volume or by type?
Geo, let me rephrase what you said. You can't tell research from opinion; therefore, the vast majority of researchers must be wrong.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think you are missing some steps.
S. J. Holgate, On the decadal rates of sea level change during the twentieth century, Geophys. Res. Lett. 34, L01602 (2007).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAbstract:
Nine long and nearly continuous sea level records were chosen from around the world to explore rates of change in sea level for 1904–2003. These records were found to capture the variability found in a larger number of stations over the last half century studied previously. Extending the sea level record back over the entire century suggests that the high variability in the rates of sea level change observed over the past 20 years were not particularly unusual. The rate of sea level change was found to be larger in the early part of last century (2.03 ± 0.35 mm/yr 1904–1953), in comparison with the latter part (1.45 ± 0.34 mm/yr 1954–2003). The highest decadal rate of rise occurred in the decade centred on 1980 (5.31 mm/yr) with the lowest rate of rise occurring in the decade centred on 1964 (−1.49 mm/yr). Over the entire century the mean rate of change was 1.74 ± 0.16 mm/yr.
Holgate is clearly a proper scientist. He uses the same method throughout (tide gauges) and compares a fifty year trend with another fifty year trend.
Surely a 2011 study will feed the alarm better:
J. R. Houston and R. G. Dean, Sea-Level Acceleration Based on U.S. Tide Gauges and Extensions of Previous Global-Gauge Analyses Journal of Coastal Resarch, 27, 409 – 417 (2011).
Abstract:
Without sea-level acceleration, the 20th-century sea-level trend of 1.7 mm/y would produce a rise of only approximately 0.15 m from 2010 to 2100; therefore, sea-level acceleration is a critical component of projected sea-level rise. To determine this acceleration, we analyze monthly-averaged records for 57 U.S. tide gauges in the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) data base that have lengths of 60–156 years. Least-squares quadratic analysis of each of the 57 records are performed to quantify accelerations, and 25 gauge records having data spanning from 1930 to 2010 are analyzed. In both cases we obtain small average sea-level decelerations. To compare these results with worldwide data, we extend the analysis of Douglas (1992) by an additional 25 years and analyze revised data of Church and White (2006) from 1930 to 2007 and also obtain small sea-level decelerations similar to those we obtain from U.S. gauge records.
That is the trouble with sea levels. With bulges and valleys throughout the oceans surface, water sloshing about from one side to the other AND land and basins rising and falling... it is very difficult to determine accurately. One must be very careful making sweeping conclusions, based on unclear parameters. GK
What's happened to climate science is 'the science' is getting lost among agenda.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a scientist I often hear the phase 'scientists say...'. What they say is not necessarily science. What is relevent is what 'science indicates'.
A study that indicates the sea levels have risen 1.8 cm, etc. is 'Science'....but then some statement added on to that such as 'therefore all the polar bears are going to die by the end of the century' is not science. It's some statement thrown out there based on not much of anything.
Climatology is a science of climate and not of zoology, sociology, health, economy, etc. Climatolgy has lost credibility and needs to refocus on science and only science.
If some climate science 'thinks' there may be some dire consequence of climate change outside of his scientific expertise, it shouldn't be lapped up as some authoritative statement any more valid than that of Joe down at the local garage.
The David Rose article is full of lies. The graph is all wrong. It doesn't even show 2010, 2005, and 1998 as the warmest years.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://earthsky.org/earth/uk-met-office-responds-global-warming-did-not-stop-16-years-ago
"How do you like having someone such as Bird/tree/dinosaur/etc. geek being a person to justify the reasonableness of your position? LOL"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy would I have a problem with it? At least he can tell truth from lies. You guys are just completely blindly biased. There's not a shred of credible science on your side, give it up.
@G. Karst,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems you can not read your own sources. From the paper you gave:
"All the stations in this study show a significant
increase in sea level over the period 1904–2003 with an
average increase of 174 mm during that time (Figure 4).
This mean rate of 1.74 mm/yr is at the upper end of the
range of estimates for the 20th century in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Third Assessment Report(IPCC TAR) [Church et al., 2001], and consistent with other recent estimates [Holgate and Woodworth, 2004; Church and White, 2006]."
And then you have the problem of that paper not addressing the FACT that the 20th century sea level rise is ANOMALOUS when compared to the past several thousand years. You do not have the option of ignoring that finding.
Another objection is that you choose a report that takes its data to 2003. It has been found that since 1993 sea level rise has increased to 3.2mm.
Reconstructing sea level using cyclostationary empirical orthogonal functions: http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/reconstructing-sea-level-using-cyclostationary-empirical-orthogonal-functions
From the abstract:
"The computed rate of global mean sea level rise from the reconstructed time series is 1.97 mm/yr from 1950 to 2009 and 3.22 mm/yr from 1993 to 2009."
Remember the text you chose to cite? "The rate of sea level change was found to be larger in the early part of last century (2.03 ± 0.35 mm/yr 1904–1953), in comparison with the latter part (1.45 ± 0.34 mm/yr.1954–2003"
Chew on that for a while don't you. Your second citation is even worse. It does not cover the entire 20th century and matter of fact only covers the continental U.S .
Are we going to play another of those games G. Karst where you once again demonstrate your incompetency and bias in assessing the scientific literature?
The "official story" of Hurricane Sandy fits all the criteria of the purported monster ftorms to be expected as a rsult of global warming. Yet no climate change adherents have spoken up anywhere to mention this. And this is significant. It looks very much, now, as if the "climate change" proponents are, themselves, just another arm of the New World Order, guiding discussion the way the NWO wants, thereby avoiding any actual substantive and workable ifnormation on the subject. They see it as a sure way to win in any conflict, having forces on both sides. The NWO moles posing as climate change adherents insist that it is only carbon emissions from factories and such and not deliberate dosing of the atmosphere by chemtrails that is the cause of climate change. But, they don't want to take a risk on something that perhaps seems just a little too suspicious as "Hurricane Sandy", so they are staying quiet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGo prostitute yourself. You'll be more socially productive that way, and women will like you slightly more.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPenrod alert!!! Beware julianpenrod and his fictional New World Order!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thispenrod, maybe you should be hiding inside with me while the hurricane uproots trees and shreds my carefully cultivated Virginia creeper vines outside.
Thanks for covering the G. Krankst for me while I was stuck in the basement without power or Internet access. It's good to find someone else who eats trolls for breakfast.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd reality keeps rolling in. New research in the Geophysical Research Letters shows an increase in the frequency, intensity and duration of heatwaves and warm spells.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIncreasing frequency, intensity and duration of observed global heatwaves and warm spells: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2012GL053361.shtml
Funny how reality seems to be at cross-purposes with what the septics claim.
Why are Alarmists anti-Science? Good questions posed in this article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://e360.yale.edu/feature/why_are_environmentalists_taking_anti-science_positions/2584/
And here comes Shoshin with a blatant "Look! Squirrel!" diversion. The article you linked too is poor journalism.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFred Pearce continues to be rubbish:
http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/
Notice all those links to the primary sources Shoshin? Those are called facts. Here are a few of those facts:
Fred Pearce and his friends try to link the GLOBAL decline in DDT use in the 60's to a ban in the U.S on DDT for AGRICULTURAL use in 1971.
Allow to further illustrate this point:
1. The 1960's occurred before the 1970's.
2. The U.S is not the entire globe.
I know it seems like pedantic points for credulous clowns such as yourself but chronology and geography matters to people who have a regard for facts.
2. DDT was never banned as a means to control malaria. It was banned from being used for widespread AGRICULTURAL use.
Facts really do matter folks.
"The "official story" of Hurricane Sandy fits all the criteria of the purported monster ftorms to be expected as a rsult of global warming. Yet no climate change adherents have spoken up anywhere to mention this."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFalse.
Google: hurricane sandy global warming
Trent
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou know that prior to satellite measurements being available there was no reliable method of accurately measuring sea level rise. Since 1992 there have been accurate measures and these measures have proven that sea level is not rising at an alarming rate or at the rate that the IPCC AR4 predicted. The margin of error in the rate of rise prior to 1992 is within the current rate. There is no reliable evidence to support a claim that the rate of sea level rise increased in 1992. Try to be honest.
Chris
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am not stating that sea level is not rising, but I am stating that it is not rising at any alarming rate and that is the truth. It is not rising at the rate the IPCC predicted and is certainly not rising at the rate that Hansen and Mann tried to make people fear it would rise at now is it? This may change in the future, but is certainly shows that the climate system is working differently that the models.
Please point out anything that I have written that is not accurate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrendt's point was demonstrated to be wrong as the estimates of the rate of rise before we had better data is consistant with what is happening now.
Bird/tree/dinosaur/etc. geek point are basically without value beacause all he/she writes is that I am untruthful without any scientific information.
Regarding Fred Pearce's article, "Why Are Environmentalists Taking Anti-Science Positions?", it appears that many people do not understand the difference between science and technology.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGenetically modified crops, nuclear power, and shale gas development are technologies. Climate change and evolution are science.
It would be better to call them technophobic.
Luddites is an apt description.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Sisko,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere you again making assertions without a hint of evidence. Your claim is laughably falsifiable. Implicit to this tall tale you spin s the notion that the 3.2 mm measured since 1993 has been the same for centuries. Do you realize that if that was true then the world global sea level should have risen 6.4 meters in the past 2000 years?
We know that can not be true because among other things we can observe coastal towns and other works of humans still above sea level. Matter of fact, there is great piece of work done when researchers measured Roman fish tanks off the coast of Italy. You know fish tanks - those devices used to keep fish fresh by allowing sea water to flow through perforated stone enclosures but were made just high enough that fish could not escape during high tide.
Sea level in Roman time in the Central Mediterranean and implications for recent change:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X04003516
"Here, we present results for sea-level change in the central Mediterranean basin for the Roman Period using new archaeological evidence. These data provide a precise measure of local sea level of −1.35±0.07 m at 2000 years ago. Part of this change is the result of ongoing glacio-hydro isostatic adjustment of the crust subsequent to the last deglaciation. When corrected for this, using geologically constrained model predictions, the change in eustatic sea level since the Roman Period is −0.13±0.09 m. A comparison with tide-gauge records from nearby locations and with geologically constrained model predictions of the glacio-isostatic contributions establishes that the onset of modern sea-level rise occurred in recent time at ∼100±53 years before present."
So there you have it. Either you accept these results or go and show that either the ancient fish mongers, or the modern archaeologist and oceanographers are incompetent or in on the conspiracy.
Which is it?
@Sisko,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisClaiming that we can not know how much sea level has risen prior to 1992 satellite measurements and then claiming that sea rise is at about 1 foot per century is contradictory. That is unless you have evidence that Jules Verne launched satellites to measure sea level in 1900.
I definitely wouldn't call them Luddites; and maybe technophobes was too rash, but from argrument Fred Pearce is attempting to make, technophobic is much more accurate than anti-science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are reasonable scientific concerns that bring into question the risk of increased use of nuclear power and fracking.
Bird, Is that your Mom's basement?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHe's crashing at Trent1492's mom's basement while his longboard is in the shop. Then he and Trent1492 are going to go out and lay down some steazy 'thane on the road out back.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou know you have won the debate when your opponents refuse to address your points and resort to insult instead. Lame.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe issue raised is not to argue DDT, GM foods of fracking.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe issue is that there is an increasingly radical and vocal faction within the environmental movement that is shunning science and as the article states "Many environmentalists are imbued with a sense of their own exceptionalism and original virtue."
The national Sierra Club is at the forefront of this arrogance as it refused to honor it's commitment to backstop a local Sierra Club chapter in Canada after it lost a court battle. With friends like the Sierra Club, who needs enemies?
Also look to the WWF and Al Gore who are deforesting Indonesia and producing huge amounts of CO2 iin order to produce palm oil (and handsome profits of course)
Face it Trent1492, your employers ain't the good guys, and science has no intrinsic value to them.
And that polyurethane on your longboard wheels? Yeah ... petroleum based.
@Shoshin,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo in a diversionary article about the DDT ban myth you refuse to address the factually incorrect assertion and bring up new ones. Typical. Why is it you think no one else can see through idiot tactic of distraction?
Why is it you refuse to answer the questions?
1. The Met Office never ever released a report saying that global warming stopped. You have been told this this repeatedly yet continue the lie.
2. DDT was never banned to control malaria. Never. It is impossible to lay the blame on a DDT ban that never existed. The only ban that exist is the one for agricultural use. That ban did not occur till the 1970's; yet you clowns insist the ban coincides with increased malaria deaths in the 1960's. Incredible!
3. From 1997 to 2012 is fifteen years; not sixteen as you morons keep on repeating. You FAIL arithmetic.
4. Sea level has accelerated to 3.2 mm per year. I have given links to that science and not one of you has addressed them. Hell, G. Karst posted a citation that said sea level was rising on the UPPER LEVEL of the IPCC projections. The stupidity it must burn in your armor of invincible ignorance.
No my citation was demonstrating the variability of rates and the various papers and problems calculating it. Again, no one disputes that sea level rise is ongoing, some 10,000 yrs now. However, drawing conclusions from highly variable rates, at varying geographic and land movement sites, generates low confidence. You seem to have trouble with this crux. It takes generations to experience SLR in any meaningful fashion. GK
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Shoshin, by repeatedly lying, distorting the truth, cherry picking, indulging in conspiracy theories, and just being fundamentally irrational you have lost all credibility. You are nothing but a evil little troll who uses right wing FUD tactics to advance a psychopathic world view. You, and people like you, are the reason the US is failing. The US is sinking under the dead weight of a scientifically illiterate population who refuse to step out of the dark ages for fear of losing their guns and bibles.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Again, no one disputes that sea level rise is ongoing, some 10,000 yrs now." right, and we all age so when we find someone deceased with a bullet in their head well then it must be because of old age. After all, if something happened naturally in the past, there is absolutely no way it can happen as a result of man's activities now. No point in even looking at the evidence because everyone knows that the naturalist fallacy is the cornerstone of reason.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat you are doing is classic right wing B.S. You take uncertainty and polarize it so it is no longer a shade of grey but black and white. Change has happened before so change now must be natural and good. Ignore the rate of change because that doesn't matter. Ignore the degree of uncertainty because uncertainty means, knowing nothing. Ignore margins of error because all there is, is error or no error. The fact that you make such an effort to distort the truth clearly shows the quality of your character. Is this really the best you could do with your life?
@G. Karst,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are offering a poor excuse for your scientific illiteracy. Let us review some of the mistakes you have made.
1. You have cited a scientific work that explicitly says that sea level rise is at the top end of IPCC projection while citing said work as evidence that global sea level rise is nothing to worry about.
2. You have cited another work U.S coastal sea level rise and conflated it with global sea level rise while failing to acknowledge that the work did not even cover the first third of the 20th century.
G. Karst Says: Again, no one disputes that sea level rise is ongoing, some 10,000 yrs now.
Trent Says: Wrong again. If you had bothered to read the scientific citations I provided you would have seen that 20th century sea level rise is anomalous for the past several thousand years. Tell me old man: Are you suffering from some cognitive dysfunction because of your old age? I ask because you are making tremendously stupid statements about papers you have no clue about. Perhaps you would be happier playing Bingo at your old folks home?
@Shoshin,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI find great irony in you claiming irrationality in the environmental movement while failing to acknowledge that banning DDT from AGRICULTURAL use in the 1970's could not have affect the 1960's malaria death rates in the 1960's, and further the ban was only for AGRICULTURAL use not DISEASE prevention.
And here are a few more facts that you and your irrational ilk refuse to acknowledge:
1. DDT has catastrophic impacts on many non-target species, including predatory birds. It’s not a good thing to be wantonly dumping into the environment.
2. 20th century overuse of DDT both for agriculture and for disease vector control resulted in mosquito resistance, which subsequently reduced the chemical’s effectiveness and increased malaria deaths. I know you clowns have problems with evolution of disease resistance but it is reality.
Everything I have mentioned above is verifiable in the scientific literature or can vouched by using arithmetic and elementary logic.
Yes. It is . Good post.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDr.A.Jagadeesh Nellore(AP),India
E-mail: anumakonda.jagadeesh@gmail.com
Trent, I see you wrote that Karst say "that sea level rise is ongoing, some 10,000 yrs now." I didn't want to read his original dribble.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI suprised that you did not entirely correct him. There has been very little sea level rise in the past 10k years (more precisely that last 7 to 8k yrs). Sea level began rising approzimately 21,000 years ago at the last glacial maximum. It accelerated about 15k years (20 meters in 200 yrs) at continued at a hight rate until 8k ago.
@Cramer,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRight you are.
Trent
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTry to be honest. Nowhere have I written that the rate of rise has been unchanged for centuries. I wrote accurately that the rate of rise since we have had an accurate measurement is at the very non-alarming rate of less than 1 foot per century. I have also written that the data we have on the prior rate of rise is consistent with the current rate of rise. The link you posted showed what I wrote to be accurate. I do not know when sea level started rising at that rate, but am not concerned about it rising at 1 foot per century. The rate will need to almost triple to hit the rate of rise predicted by the IPCC in AR4. Do you agree that there models were wrong? When do you state that the rate will start to increase?
You guys are stroking each other with straw man arguments.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI did not assert that my cite was for the purpose of "while citing said work as evidence that global sea level rise is nothing to worry about." That is your assertion (straw man) - NOT MINE.
SLR has been a problem since the great ice stades melted in the past and which continue to melt to-day. It will continue to be a problem until oceans begin to cool.
To say differently, would be inaccurate. To say rates were constant throughout the various optimums and cooling cycles would be mindful ignorance equal to your straw man assumptions. We are presently in another optimum and rates will vary accordingly, as they will when the next cooling and increasing glaciation occurs.
Mankind (and nature) will have to deal with it, the same as it has for the last 10-15 thousand years... over multiple generations. Important shorelines will be protected for centuries until it is no longer possible to do so. They then become submerged for future generations to wonder and display awe at - not fear.
To conclude rates are constant thru various climate changes serves no one, but by all means, continue the stroking.
As to age (cognitive dysfunction because of your old age?), in your esteemed expert opinion - what age does a mans opinion become worthless. Try to be specific so that, us befuddled oldsters, can know when to pull the plug. You should probably check with your Father or Grandfather before answering. Keep in mind, that you are only a few ticks away from being old yourself. Unless you are older than 60a - you really haven't experienced climate... or at least no more than one data point.
I have experience both warming periods as well as cooling, and remain concerned, but not alarmist. There is no reason to run for the hills. GK
Sisko,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSpeaking of honesty and intelligence. When will you address the fact that you can not proclaim a century of 20th century data from 19 years of data; thirteen of occurred in 21st century. Your an idiot and a boob to insist otherwise.
You have insisted that the tide gauge and geological data is unreliable and yet provide no empirical or logical analysis to make this assertion. In other words you called the data unreliable out of fiat.
Here are the facts as they have been presented to you repeatedly with peer reviewed research:
1. The 20th century sea level rise is anomalous for the past 8,000 years.
2. Past sea level rise up to the late 19th century was either non-existent or occurred at around 0.6mm.
3. Sea level rise is in the 21st century now at 3.1mm another 50% increase over the 20th century average.
The only argument you really bring to bear hear is your ignorant insistence of incredulity. An argument from incredulity is not logical argument.
What you fail to substantiate is why you think that sea level rise will not accelerate. Pitiful. It has already been demonstrated to you that sea level rise has quintupled since the late 19th century to the present. That increase occurred in the context of a .8c rise in temperatures. What physical force prevents the sea from further rising as temperatures further rise? Present the peer reviewed evidence.
@G. Karst,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou have been repeatedly presented with the evidence that sea level rise has not been steady. You have ignored it. Why? Do you think that ignoring the geological and archaeological data is going to make it go away?
Here are the facts that you repeatedly ignore.
1.global Sea level for the past several thousand years up until the late 19th century was either non-existent or at around 0.6mm. That is not conjecture, but scientific fact. So why do you ignore it?
2. The 20th century global sea level rise was 2.1mm. That rise is 3.5 time faster than at any time in the past several thousand years. Evidence has been presented with the peer reviewed evidence to you several times before. Why do you like a two year old think that ignoring it will make it go away?
3. Sea level over the past 18 years has now reached 3.1mm per year.
4. All of the 20th and 21st century sea level rise has occurred in the context of just 0.8C rise in temperatures. Why do you think that the sea level rise will not continue to accelerate? What physical mechanism prevents it? Please refer to peer reviewed sources.
Doesn't anybody post data anymore? For crying out loud, present data or logic. These are the only arguments in science, if you want any claim on the scientific high ground.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisName-calling only diminishes your credibility and degenerates the forum into petty bickering.
This is supposed to be the "Scientific American."
Trent
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnfortunately you are once again being untruthful.
Fact--The sea level data YOU PRESENTED showed that the estimates for the rate of rise prior to 1992 were within the margin of error of the current rate of rise.
Fact-- The rate of rise over the last 20 years has would lead to a very unalarming sea level rise of under 1 foot by 2100 and not what the IPCC predicted of .6 meters of that Hansen published that feared a rise of 2 meters.
Trent- Here aretwo very simple questions:
1. When is the rate of sea level rise going to accelerate?
2. How long will it the current rate of rise have to continue for you to admit that you and other were wrong about how much it will rise by 2100?
The Church of Science is collapsing under all the cover-ups and lies. Certainly if all the winners of Nobel prizes over the years put their heads together, they could think up some way to save this poor doomed planet of ours. Those people are good for something aren't they? They should be good for something other than perpetuating mankind's rut. This poor doomed spinning lump of iron we exist on. If only spinning magnets were good for something, darn it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNikola Tesla got energy to come out of thin air, but then his funding got pulled. My goodness, when will there be enough money circulating on this planet to keep everything afloat that needs to be? Men work and work to make money, but still there's never enough in the end.
Well, first things first. We need to go to Mars.
Even NASA understands the problem of SLR measurements due to the difficulty of a fixed reference.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNew proposal from NASA JPL admits to “spurious” errors in current satellite based sea level and ice altimetry, calls for new space platform to fix the problem.
The difference between tide gauge data and space based data is over 100% in the left graph, 1.5 mm/yr versus 3.2mm/yr. Of course those who claim that sea level rise is accelerating accept this data without question, but obviously one of the two data sets (or possibly both) is not representative of reality, and JPL’s GRASP team aims to fix this problem they have identified:
TRF errors readily manifest as spurious sea level rise accelerations
That’s a bucket of cold water reality into the face of the current view of sea level rise. It puts this well-known and often cited graph on Sea Level Rise from the University of Colorado (and the rate of 3.1 mm/yr) into question.
http://ccar.colorado.edu/~nerem/EV-2_GRASP-final.pdf
For those who want a better understanding of the problems, and don't mind taking a walk on the wild side, they can find it at:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/30/finally-jpl-intends-to-get-a-grasp-on-accurate-sea-level-and-ice-measurements/#more-73392
I think it outlines the recognized problems well. GK
Sisko,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFact--You do not understand margin of error. Margin of error does not apply to the average itself. It's the random sampling error for one specific year from the overall average.
The linear trend from 1900 to 2009 is 1.7 +/- 0.2 mm/yr. That means sea level rose approximately 187 mm over that time (110 data points). This does NOT mean that from 1900 to 2009 sea level might have rose anywhere from 165 to 209 mm. Rather this means that each year sea level rose anywhere from 1.5 to 1.9 mm/yr. [I am not sure of the level of significance.]
Was wondering if you could provide a URL from the Met Office about this. Would like to check it out. Thanks.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKarst, you should make it more clear that you are just cutting and pasting from wattsupwiththat.com.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCramer- as an engineer I understand margin of error and the estimates that Trent showed were within the margin of error of the rate shown by sat measurements
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks Crammer:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere should be an excerpt mark on the second paragraph thru to the first link. Seems it was, the only error, you could find. Interesting... More reason to click on the links provided. GK
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt has been proven that co2 jump preceded the temperature jump at the end of the last ice age.Climate change is no more a hoax. People are slow in getting this because they are so much addicted to energy that they cant imagine their life without it. By the time people start believing this it will be too late.
How do you explain the rising number storms in the US in the last 15 years.
How do you explain the ice melting in arctic and antartic
How do you explain freezing Europe and thawing greenland.
I have a self sustaining life style.My house is powered by off grid solar panels(I did it myself and it cost me about $3000)
I am building a biodigester which will serve my cooking needs and use the compost for growing vegetables. I am planning to drive a electric car, which will again be charged by my solar panels.
It will need some sacrifices on out part to adopt this lifestyle, and if we are slow we may not get a second chance.
We have taken a path of burning fossil fuels in the last 100 years. Lets try the other path and see if we can make a difference.
It has been proven that co2 jump preceded the temperature jump at the end of the last ice age.Climate change is no more a hoax. People are slow in getting this because they are so much addicted to energy that they cant imagine their life without it. By the time people start believing this it will be too late.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow do you explain the rising number storms in the US in the last 15 years.
How do you explain the ice melting in arctic and antartic
How do you explain freezing Europe and thawing greenland.
I have a self sustaining life style.My house is powered by off grid solar panels(I did it myself and it cost me about $3000)
I am building a biodigester which will serve my cooking needs and use the compost for growing vegetables. I am planning to drive a electric car, which will again be charged by my solar panels.
It will need some sacrifices on out part to adopt this lifestyle, and if we are slow we may not get a second chance.
We have taken a path of burning fossil fuels in the last 100 years. Lets try the other path and see if we can make a difference.
Does it matter, mailman? I'm just getting back to you now because the Net's been out, but no, it was not my mother's basement.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@G.Karst let us review once again all of the evidence that has been presented and you have ignored in this thread:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. Over the past 8,000 years geological and archaeological evidence tells us sea level rise has been either been non existent or at around 0.6mm.
2. The the 20th century global average sea level rise was ~2mm. It is now 3.1mm.
Now onto your latest swallowing of the propaganda at WTFUWT.
A. NASA says no such thing as you claim.
B. You and the other ignorati have conflated the commendable striving for improved accuracy with thinking that the past 19 years of data are therefore worthless. The proposal for the GRASP satellite says it wants to bring the error rate down not that the data is worthless.
G.Karst Says: The difference between tide gauge data and space based data is over 100% in the left graph, 1.5 mm/yr versus 3.2mm/yr
Trent Says: Once again you and Anthony Watts prove that you can read a graph.
1. Sees those numbers at the bottom of the graphs? That is called x axis and those numbers are years from 1975 to 1993 for the tide gauge data. From 1993 to 2010 is the altimeter data. What you just did is compare a time series rate of 1975-1993 to the same time series for 1993 to 2010. The graph on the left gives an ACCELERATION of 0.047mm per year for the entire time series. While the SIMULATED data gives an ACCELERATION of 0.025MM per year. Here is the real difference between the SIMULATED rate and the EMPIRICAL rate.
Simulated: 2.9mm/yr
Empirical:3.2mm/yr
You seriously need to some lessons in critical thinking.
Thanks for covering the nuts while I was eating candle-warmed canned beans. Ditto for Trent, thanks. Always good to have some allies against the forces of Irrationality and Blatant Stupidity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn your science-free trolling and greed, you are at least following a long tradition in the right wing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Pokerplayer/Sisko,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are not an engineer or a scientist as you have also claimed on this thread. Shall I link over to Deltoid where as Pokerplayer you claimed to work in aerospace? Remember that episode where you claimed to want to bet 100,000 dollars and Bernard J. took you up and then you backed off? I do.
okerplayer has admitted to sockpuppety. Go to this thread and take a look at post# 432, 432 and 450. There he is cornered by me and others and admits to having several sock puppets. Here he is also known as Sisko.
Science Blogs Deltoid: Open Thread
link:http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/01/january_2012_open_thread.php
That thread from the point where Pokerplayer first appears at #250 to when he flees it by # 476 is full of win and hilarity.
In it, not only is Pokerplayer revealed to be a puppeteer, but he tried to make a bogus bet of $100,000 USD with one of the forum members. That forum member takes him up on it and Pokerplayer then drops the gimmick.
It is also a very interesting read Sisko...I mean Pokerplayer did not realize he was dealing with real currently publishing scientist in the field. Reading Jeff Harvey is a real treat; while John Mashey is computer scientist and Silicon Valley pioneer with his own Wikipedia entry. It really is a fun read.
Go to the thread folks and see what Pokerplayer/Sisko says about working in Aerospace.
"""You guys are stroking each other with straw man arguments."""
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLie. Let's see some evidence.
"""I did not assert that my cite was for the purpose of "while citing said work as evidence that global sea level rise is nothing to worry about." That is your assertion (straw man) - NOT MINE."""
Lie.
"""SLR has been a problem since the great ice stades melted in the past and which continue to melt to-day. It will continue to be a problem until oceans begin to cool."""
And this affects our argument how?
"""To say differently, would be inaccurate. To say rates were constant throughout the various optimums and cooling cycles would be mindful ignorance equal to your straw man assumptions. We are presently in another optimum and rates will vary accordingly, as they will when the next cooling and increasing glaciation occurs."""
Optimum? You consider the lowest sea ice levels in recorded history (based on modern data and Viking and similar texts) optimal?????
"""Mankind (and nature) will have to deal with it, the same as it has for the last 10-15 thousand years... over multiple generations. Important shorelines will be protected for centuries until it is no longer possible to do so. They then become submerged for future generations to wonder and display awe at - not fear."""
Except that the planet's current biodiversity cannot cope with rapid anthropogenic global warming and sea level rise. Furthermore, you are acting like a BANDit; denying a phenomenon and then claiming that it is not a problem in the same post.
"""As to age (cognitive dysfunction because of your old age?), in your esteemed expert opinion - what age does a mans opinion become worthless. Try to be specific so that, us befuddled oldsters, can know when to pull the plug. You should probably check with your Father or Grandfather before answering. Keep in mind, that you are only a few ticks away from being old yourself. Unless you are older than 60a - you really haven't experienced climate... or at least no more than one data point."""
Whoa...discrediting all of your opponents, because people over sixty are demented and people younger than that are inexperienced? That's low. Although I guess that I could expect no better from a denialist clown.
"""I have experience both warming periods as well as cooling, and remain concerned, but not alarmist. There is no reason to run for the hills. GK"""
Then, by your own logic, you must be at the very least 120, and therefore senile and not worth listening to.
"""Pokerplayer has admitted to sockpuppety. Go to this thread and take a look at post# 432, 432 and 450. There he is cornered by me and others and admits to having several sock puppets. Here he is also known as Sisko.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience Blogs Deltoid: Open Thread
link:http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/01/january_2012_open_thread.php
That thread from the point where Pokerplayer first appears at #250 to when he flees it by # 476 is full of win and hilarity.
In it, not only is Pokerplayer revealed to be a puppeteer, but he tried to make a bogus bet of $100,000 USD with one of the forum members. That forum member takes him up on it and Pokerplayer then drops the gimmick.
It is also a very interesting read Sisko...I mean Pokerplayer did not realize he was dealing with real currently publishing scientist in the field. Reading Jeff Harvey is a real treat; while John Mashey is computer scientist and Silicon Valley pioneer with his own Wikipedia entry. It really is a fun read."""
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!!!
I have seen cranks like Bill_Crofut try to take on David Marjanovich (brilliant paleontologist and friend of the famous Darren Naish) on Tetrapod Zoology. It's just as fun. Good job smashing Sisko/Pokerplayer. Internet anonymity is nixed by the IP address tell.
Sisko, please explain how the satellite measurements are within the margin of error.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'll remind you of the data:
1993–2009 (satellite date): 3.2 +/- 0.4 mm/yr
1900-2009: 1.7 +/- 0.2 mm/yr
Link:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/h2575k28311g5146/
I'll remind you what you said:
"Fact--The sea level data YOU PRESENTED showed that the estimates for the rate of rise prior to 1992 were within the margin of error of the current rate of rise."
I have a strong gut feeling, and my gut is sure big alright, and many times very accurate indeed. I think we are going to see many more events , I mean, what are the chances B.C. got a quake & the East coast flooded so close? Are they symbiotically related?? U tell me. what when and if the main huge fault snaps along the California coast in our next 4yrs and we loose half the state? I really hope & pray not but are we really prepared?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSisko/pokerplayer's thought process:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisH'mmm...3.2+/-.4:
2.8<x<3.6
1.7+/-.2:
1.5<x<1.9
Well, the data contradicts my irrational point; better lie and make stuff up while providing no evidence!
[end parody]
With debate opponents like this, who needs clowns?
I really hope so. The sooner it gets here the sooner people will accept that humans can do nothing about it and all of the agitation for massive government controls will stop. It's too late, guys. Get over it. Global warming follows every global cooling, and then all over again. There's nothing you can do about this and you didn't cause this cycle, either. This has been happening for billions of years.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo more frigid winters, heating bills will drop, food crops will grow where they haven't for a long time, perhaps even antartica will bloom again and certainly northern Canada will. And we can finally get rid of most of Florida. Maybe they will move to Canada. I can hardly wait.
Now Birdy, I was actually concerned with your absence. Your comments provide some background humor on these posts. Good to see you back on and in form!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Postman: A very intellectual refutation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Laird and OXY: It's not a wonder that those who write specifically and correctly regarding our current climate debacle have not posted referencing your ineptitude (Laird, I will consider your post as a joke; If it is, good one.).
On a side-note, I listened to a Hansen interview this morning on NPR. He raised a question that was interesting: Why do the oil companies question the process through which climatologists adhere to in coming to their conclusions; The same scientific process through which the internal combustion engine and its fuel were developed?
@Trent: Keep up the good work. I haven't the energy.
@Laird Wilcox,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSaying that climate change has happened before and it can not therefore now be the responsibility of humans is akin to saying that since forest fires happened before humans ever developed fire that arson is now impossible. Illogical.
It is blatantly obvious that you are unfamiliar with the science and that you are utterly unaware of the human fingerprints to climate change such fingerprints as:
1. Prediction that the stratosphere would cool while the troposphere warmed was first made in 1967:
Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity:
http://nsdl.org/sites/classic_articles/Article10.htm
Observation: Recent Stratospheric Climate Trends as Evidenced in Radiosonde Data: Global Structure and Tropospheric Linkages:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI3585.1
2. Nights warming faster than days. Prediction first made in 1896:
On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground: http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf
Observation: Effects of Clouds, Soil Moisture, Precipitation, and Water Vapor on Diurnal Temperature Range: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/1520-0442%281999%29012%3C2451:EOCSMP%3E2.0.CO;2
Ok Trent, I've reviewed the articles you've referenced above. That's fine. They are published papers for the most part, but what evidence do you have besides scientific opinion, predictions and calculations?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is an example of data from NASA. (not opinion, scientific or otherwise)
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.shtml?stnid=140-012
It shows the Mean Sea Level Trend in Cuxhaven, Germany for the past 160 years. Please point out for me where meaningful change of rate of sea level has occurred.
Here is the entire data set from NASA in an interactive map.
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.shtml
Please find for me any station in the world that shows any acceleration in sea level rise.
I see that one of the most vociferous voices here is, if I'm not mistaken, an artist, no? I'm a scientist. Let's make an agreement - you stick with the art and I'll stick with the science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs opposed to artists, scientists actually have something to add to the global warning debate while, it appears, that artists such as yourself are left to merely collect and repackage others thoughts and opinions. Would you care to hear my opinion about Pollack's last piece - I thought not. Honestly, if you are not bringing anything original to the table then what's your point. Anyone on the planet could string together the bits of information that you collect from hither and yon and use it to either support or deny global warming.
I'll be much more likely to buy into your "argument" if you can produce one formula that backs up your assertions. No? I thought not.
The opinion of any scientist on any GLOBAL ISSUES must be free from all the influences.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor example IF I SAY --------the befits of the inventions must percolate to all the segment of the mankind – modalities may vary place to place / case to case basis,--- all of us will agree to this.
But if the statement is made on global issue just to divert the COAL BASED economic growth of the underdeveloped countries, ---- by means of such intellectual propagandas i.e. highlighting global worming ---------------------------------all may not agree to this.
Since there are Global Worming ( this have been proved based on the latest knowledge and our understanding nature , however this existing school of thought might be swiped away later on), why not the people of developed countries ( those who are the most learned segment of the mankind ) not taking any major step/ not making any major movement towards stopping of all kinds of activities emitting Co2.
We must love our Green Globe, we must be very much concern for her caring capacity leaving behind all the artificial/real boundaries.
Gautam K Das. Specialist on CDM, INDIA, (Hand Phone 00919830988199)
Hey, thanks for the sentiment! Thanks for appreciating my carefully crafted humor!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Saying that climate change has happened before and it can not therefore now be the responsibility of humans is akin to saying that since forest fires happened before humans ever developed fire that arson is now impossible. Illogical."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo one is silly enough to claim forest fires are unprecedented. Only alarmists make such claims regarding weather events and climate. There-in lies the illogical.
Speaking of the illogical, this thread is pretty much done with the return of the hooting noisemaker. GK
"""Speaking of the illogical, this thread is pretty much done with the return of the hooting noisemaker. GK"""
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI thought that I told you to go prostitute yourself in order to help society in some way. There have to be *some* women who want your services, right?
"""No one is silly enough to claim forest fires are unprecedented. Only alarmists make such claims regarding weather events and climate. There-in lies the illogical."""
Actually, the penrod might claim that forest fires are unprecedented, but luckily he/she/it is not here.
The illogical part is that you cannot see that we are currently experiencing a warming event that is faster than anything that our planet has ever seen by several orders of magnitude, and yet you continue to go "lalala we'll all be fine I want my cheap oil for my gas-guzzling SUV lalala".
Correction of grammatical error:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"""The illogical part is that you can clearly see..."""
"No one is silly enough to claim forest fires are unprecedented. Only alarmists make such claims regarding weather events and climate. There-in lies the illogical."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn the one extreme, we have a few people claiming that every hurricane is caused by global warming.
On the other extreme, we have a few people claiming that global warming is not happening. Most of the folks from that camp have shifted to "it's not our fault". Some say warming is a good thing. The latest shift is to saying we just need to adapt to the changes.
Most of the experts agree that it's happening, it's largely due to humans putting additional CO2 into the atmosphere, and it is going to cause a lot of problems for humans and other species. A mass extinction is a major concern.
Lots of species won't be able to adapt or relocate fast enough to survive. Already millions of acres of pines have been killed due to the shifting range of bark beetles, due to warming. Lots of other habitats are at risk.
"""On the one extreme, we have a few people claiming that every hurricane is caused by global warming."""
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWho's saying that?
Trent and others post that the rate of sea level rise has increased based on looking at data sources from prior to 1992. He posted a link shown below to support his/her position
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X04003516
The paper was pay walled but the abstract indicated that the estimates were based upon reconstructions.
Trent writes- “you can not proclaim a century of 20th century data from 19 years of data” and “What you fail to substantiate is why you think that sea level rise will not accelerate.”
My response- you have almost 20 years of data demonstrating that sea level IS rising at a rate of less than 1 foot per century. In order for it to rise by .6 meter between 2000 and 2100 the rate of rise will have to more than double from its current rate and there is no evidence to support that is happening or that it will happen in the future. Each year the current trend is maintained means the future trend would have to get worse for the IPCC to have been correct.
Might the trend increase? Yes, but there is no data to support an assumption that it will. A much better question is why should we fear sea level rising at a much greater rate than it is currently rising? There is silence from the Trent in response. Question- When will the trend change to a higher rate of 2 to 6 times the current rate? Again, no answer from Trent.
In a prior exchange I have offered to wager $100K of my money with anyone who believes that GCM can accurately forecast annual rainfall at specific locations. (Trent used to make such claims. A GCM would need to be able to do this if it can be relied upon to tell us a specific location will be harmed because it will get 10% less annual rainfall than it is currently getting. Many of the IPCC’s reported harms were attributed to changes such as this. Yes, the wager offer was a sucker bet since anyone who knows about the capability of GCMs knows that they would fail. The question is why some rely upon them to forecast future conditions.
""On the one extreme, we have a few people claiming that every hurricane is caused by global warming."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Who's saying that? "
Some careless person on a discussion somewhere. And an implied statement, not an explicit statement. Sorry, no reference.
I certainly haven't seen that kind of talk as much as the denialist side, where they get their talking points from professional deniers.
"""Trent and others post that the rate of sea level rise has increased based on looking at data sources from prior to 1992. He posted a link shown below to support his/her position
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X04003516
The paper was pay walled but the abstract indicated that the estimates were based upon reconstructions."""
If you were serious, instead of being a troll, then you would buy through the paywall.
"""Trent writes- “you can not proclaim a century of 20th century data from 19 years of data” and “What you fail to substantiate is why you think that sea level rise will not accelerate.”"""
Trent's got a point, pokerplayer. You are making ludicrous and unscientific claims with no supporting evidence.
"""My response- you have almost 20 years of data demonstrating that sea level IS rising at a rate of less than 1 foot per century. In order for it to rise by .6 meter between 2000 and 2100 the rate of rise will have to more than double from its current rate and there is no evidence to support that is happening or that it will happen in the future. Each year the current trend is maintained means the future trend would have to get worse for the IPCC to have been correct."""
Lie, lie, lie, lie. That passage was completely fact-free.
"""Might the trend increase? Yes, but there is no data to support an assumption that it will. A much better question is why should we fear sea level rising at a much greater rate than it is currently rising? There is silence from the Trent in response. Question- When will the trend change to a higher rate of 2 to 6 times the current rate? Again, no answer from Trent."""
Lie. Trent has already answered your question, it's already quite fast enough.
"""In a prior exchange I have offered to wager $100K of my money with anyone who believes that GCM can accurately forecast annual rainfall at specific locations. (Trent used to make such claims. A GCM would need to be able to do this if it can be relied upon to tell us a specific location will be harmed because it will get 10% less annual rainfall than it is currently getting. Many of the IPCC’s reported harms were attributed to changes such as this. Yes, the wager offer was a sucker bet since anyone who knows about the capability of GCMs knows that they would fail. The question is why some rely upon them to forecast future conditions. """
LIE!!! That next-to-last sentence should have read: "I know jack about GCMs and just say they fail because I'm too lazy to learn."
Bird/tree/dinosaur/etc. geek
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou sir or miss are a complete idiot! I post data and facts and you fail to address and just write lie lie lie. I have posted the links to analysis of GCMs and the actual rate of sea level rise but idiots such as you are unable to read real facts and data.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/adding-multi-model-means-to-model-v-observations-graphs/
When you lie, pokerplayer, I'll call you out on it. You seem to be immune to logic, facts, data, and science, and so I will continue to mock you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFurthermore, denialists' "analyses" of GCMs, sea level rise, etc. are not facts. You are basically quoting the oil industry's cheerleaders, and refuse to be called out on it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFinally, given the above, I think that you are the idiot here. You remind me of a geocentrist named Bill Crofut, who thought that he could take on the paleontologist David Marjanovich with no evidence and win. You are just as arrogant, willfully ignorant, and blatantly stupid.
It is pointless to analyze GCMs with a simple univariate ARMA time-series model as done by your blogger, Lucia. Is that all you can give us is a link to an anonymous blogger who might know something about time-series analysis, but knows nothing about GCMs. If Lucia has any significant expertise in statistics (other than taking an undergraduate class in time series analysis), Lucia would know better than to abuse the data in this way. I am sure that is why he blogs anonymously, so his colleagues do not discover his fraud.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlus, sea level rise is not part of his analysis.
What is your point by referencing Lucia, other than to waste our time? Please reference some real science (not anonymous bloggers).
He doesn't have a point. If he thinks that an anonymous blogger (as opposed to, say, Darren Naish (the guy who does Tetrapod Zoology)) is a good source of information, then he is completely irrational.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"""Lucia is a woman"""
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOK, so Cramer missed one.
""" and if you visit her site you will see multiple analysis of the performance of GCMs vs. observed conditions. """
Except that he JUST SAID that those analyses are deeply flawed and improper for the job.
"""It is absolute proof that GCMs have over predicted the rate of warming. """
Lie.
"""The fact that you are not familiar with her and her site the Blackboard is quite telling. It is one where science oriented individuals actually discuss the science. """
Lie. It's a denialist hangout.
"""Why is it in your words “pointless” to perform an analysis such as she has done? I notice you point out zero errors in her analysis; you only act as the idiot Geek does and write pointless. """
Please stop calling me "the idiot geek" or I will return to calling you Your Idiocy. Lucia's analyses are overly simplistic, biased, and not rigorous enough for the job.
"""Regarding sea level rise, http://sealevel.colorado.edu/"""
Blatantly biased.
"""The rate of sea level rise is known and it is happening at less than half the rate the IPCC predicted and at 15% of the rate that Hansen told people to fear. """
Lie.
"""Since the observed conditions are what they are, it seems quite reasonable to ask those who feared or predicted that a much higher rate of rise would occur to tell us when the rate will change. """
See above.
"""Please tell me Cramer, how much do you believe sea level will rise by 2100? When will the rate change to achieve your prediction? """
In short, pokerplayer, you DIDN'T ACTUALLY READ CRAMER'S CRITICISM. You are trotting out the same old, tired lies that have been debunked repeatedly, and you think that you are clever, in the same way that a bratty toddler does when he makes mud pies with fine dishes (or some other really crazy thing).
Sisko,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou're wasting your time with Bird/tree/dinosaur/etc. geek. But, you've probably already figured that out.
Thanks for the link comparing GCM's to observations. It will be interesting reading for sure. It's surprising how few people in this debate want to actually look at the data rather that models, theory and hypothesis.
My main focus has been on the temperature records and the quality of the observations and biases in the data.
As far as data analysis goes, the adage that if you torture the data long enough, it will talk, goes a long way in explaining how hysterical warnings can be made with no apparent trends in the data.
Brian
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with you assessment of Geek. I posted Cramer's comment over at Lucia's site where she has yet another analysis of climate models because I thought it was so dumb and inaccurate that it was funny.
Lucia does not present an adequate analysis of the validity of the 11 AR4 GCMs (which I was unable to identify). She analyzed the models over a 138 month period from Jan 2001 and compared them to the near trendless GISTemp, NOAA/NCDC and HadCrut3 temperature data. When she ran the simulations, the models did not produce the same trends within a 5% significance level.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy should I expect Lucia's simulations to show trendless data over 138-month period (assuming she ran them correctly)? I would not expect that type of accuracy over that short of period. Do the simulations adequately account for El Nino/La Nina?
"[Sisko] posted Cramer's comment over at Lucia's site..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust as long as you included the context of your original referenes:
------------
Comment 104. Sisko 01:34 PM 11/1/12
"You sir or miss are a complete idiot! I post data and facts and you fail to address and just write lie lie lie. I have posted the links to analysis of GCMs and the actual rate of sea level rise but idiots such as you are unable to read real facts and data.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/adding-multi-model-means-to-model-v-observations-graphs/"
Sisco is correct from what I've read, try reading Professor Bob Carter's YouTube summaries on AWG, in a four-part series starting at http://tinyurl.com/2pjd9l
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, Burt Rutan, the world's first civilian astronaut, did his own study of AWG, at http://tinyurl.com/a3dpycd
Mr. Rutan has four decades worth of data analysis regarding flight and has designed, build, and flown 45 experimental aircraft. Finally, over 30,000 scientists have looked at the IPCC conclusions, and find them lacking, including 9000 PhDs, and signed the Petition Project, http://www.petitionproject.org/
Bird, Nowsane is not lying about the petition. It is there and it is signed by over 31 thousand American scientists, over 9 thousand of whom are phds. No matter what anyone may feel about the petition, it does exist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisif only science can be settled by a survey. fortunately we can make measurements of global temperature, atmospheric CO2, sea level, experiments on spectrometry and build dikes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe petition is a pile of Republican lies. It exits, but it is a pile of lies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegardless of how many doctors, neurologists, etc. have signed it, 97% of meteorologists "believe" AGW theory. [I've put that sentence in the short-but-inaccurate form to spare everyone a massively long rant (MLR)]
Finally, I hope that you are not still snowed in. I'm back in my house, with power (Yay!) after only about a week.
This interesting and timely satement of facts about global warming points that a limit is to be set in 450 ppm CO2, however, it was previously said that the perfect figure would be 350 ppm CO2. Why look for a level to stop that may be too high, when you're right now just a little bit over the perfect CO2 concentration? Even when many things have been done, there may be many simple and cheap measures to reduce CO2 and other greenhouse effects gases emissions. The time for a thorough action is now!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI meant above, better than over
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt would be stupid to build/buy a house that is below 100 feet above sea level.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is this nonsense about the United Kingdom Meterological Office denying climate change?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a British biology graduate I'm getting sick and tired of American apologists for the fossil fuel industry having a go at British climate scientists - and therefore helping to ensure climate havoc for all the rest of the human species and other life on Earth.
Here's the website address for the Met Office's climate change pages:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change
Where does any denier find any claim that climate change isn't happening?
They just deny the data. That's why we call them denialists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey just deny the data. That's why we call them denialists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA taxonomy of denialism? I'd like to offer a suggestion. (Particularly in the light to storm Sandy's tremendous impacts on the NE US.) For greater efficiency in response to the now-routine, formulaic and predictable denialist responses -- to climate change science -- particularly in fora like this -- I'd like to suggest that we evolve a standard "canonical" etiology of denial and simply classify denialist responses in terms thereof. This effort will require some initial work but in the long run will be much more efficient. We have much actual work to do with respect to mitigation, down-scaling data to actionable projections and debating/ evaluating serious policy alternatives... We are never going to convince *all* people -- and sadly (or not?) the Web gives every person with an opinion -- no matter how discredited -- the right to keep trumpeting...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks johnhaverysamuel for the link to the Met Office blog http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMight have known it was the Daily Mail behind this disgusting (and libellous, possibly?) claim that British climate scientists have said there's been no recent warming.
I'd like to be able just to be proud to be British because of the quality of our science. But I'm also ashamed to be British because of the muck-raking tendencies of 'news'papers like the Daily Mail.
I've now signed up to the Met Office blog!
Yay! Down with Rupert Murdoch and his lie-mongering corporation!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat the hell IS a 'Climate Scientist' ? I found a list of so called 'Climate Scientists' on the internet, and it seems most of these people had educational
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisbackgrounds in physics or biology or geology, and almost ALL these people are currently employed at universities or government agencies, so this whole crowd obviously leans to the left because their paychecks are derived from the government dole and I am sure these 'climate scientists' are pressured into supporting the leftist party doctrine of 'evil humans are the cause of all global warming.' The earth is currently in an ice age (Quaternary). The earth has undergone MANY cycles of cooling and warming for 4.5 billion years. MOST of these warming periods occurred BEFORE humans even existed. There are hundreds of variables (including atronomical cycles and ocean currents and solar flares and reduced or increased solar output and plate tectonics and earth axis tilt and wobble etc etc) that may or may not influence global warming or global cooling. The Younger Dryas (Big Freeze) period occurred a mere 12,000 years ago and the mean temperature in Europe dropped to 41 degrees Fahrenheit for 1400 years, and climate scientists have NO idea what caused this Big Freeze and have NO idea why the Big Freeze ended. The point here is 'Climate Scientsts' still have MUCH to learn about earth's natural warming and cooling cycles. Even though MOST 'Climate Scientists' support the leftist party doctine of the evil human climate warmer, many of these conclusions are skewed by politics, and it is also certainly possible to look at massive amounts of imperfect data and draw any kind of conclusion one wants. A leftist scientist and a right-wing scientist could look at the same set of big data and draw completely opposite conclusions and use this same set of big imperfect data to support their opposing conclusions. Human carbon footprints SHOULD be reduced simply to reduce pollution, but draconian measures like oppressive carbon taxes would crush already fragile global economies. The reduction of human carbon footprints needs to be gradual and measured. Oppressive carbon taxes could generate a global economic depression that could lead to famine and wars and collapse of societies – and these outcomes would be WORSE than a short term rise in sea levels.
"""What the hell IS a 'Climate Scientist' ? """
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSomeone who studies the Earth's global climate. Essentially a big-picture meteorology.
"""I found a list of so called 'Climate Scientists' on the internet, and it seems most of these people had educational
backgrounds in physics or biology or geology, """
What the **** did you expect? There wasn't an env-sci major or meteorology major ANYWHERE in the period before the 1990s, and most prominent climate scientists got their degrees in the eighties or earlier.
"""and almost ALL these people are currently employed at universities or government agencies, so this whole crowd obviously leans to the left because their paychecks are derived from the government dole and I am sure these 'climate scientists' are pressured into supporting the leftist party doctrine of 'evil humans are the cause of all global warming.' """
Off the deep end into Republican fantasyland. Your guy lost. Get over it. Everyone with half a brain who has looked at the actual data (unlike you, who seem to be too lazy and/or wilfully ignorant) has seen that the planet is experiencing a catastrophic warming event that has been directly caused by human CO2 emissions.
"""The earth is currently in an ice age (Quaternary). """
Lie. Check your facts. Also, the Ice Ages happened in the Pleistocene (Villcanfranchian stage European, Rancholabrean NAMLA).
Bird/Tree : You are a clown. If you knew what you are talking about you would know the five major ice ages of planet earth are: Huronian, Cryogenian, Andean-Saharan, Karoo, and Quaternay. Planet earth is CURRENTLY in the Quaternay Ice Age. I am not a Republican. I am an Independent only looking at FACTS and I would like to hear from some informed 'Climate Scientists' (not clowns like you) who are NOT leftist politcal puppets sucking on government teats. Also, the last point I made in my earlier post is humans SHOULD reduce their carbon footprints simply to reduce pollution. Do you think humans should NOT reduce their carbon footprints ? I get the feeling you just like to post your inane drivel simply to annoy people. Get lost and stop wasting our time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"""You are a clown. """
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLiterally speaking, I am not.
"""If you knew what you are talking about you would know the five major ice ages of planet earth are: Huronian, Cryogenian, Andean-Saharan, Karoo, and Quaternay. """
WTF? First of all, you misspelled Quatrenary. Second, I am a paleontologist, and I don't know what the hell you're talking about. We are technically in an interglacial period. If by "Karoo Ice Age" you mean the end-Permian event, you are off your rocker. The PT event was global warming (due to methane hydrates and (indirectly) to hydrogen sulfide emissions) that makes our current warming event look like a blip on the radar. The Smithian stage of the early Triassic was so hot that animal life literally could not survive in the tropics for five+ million years.
"""Planet earth is CURRENTLY in the Quaternay Ice Age. I am not a Republican. I am an Independent only looking at FACTS and I would like to hear from some informed 'Climate Scientists' (not clowns like you) who are NOT leftist politcal puppets sucking on government teats. """
That bit of right-wing rhetoric shows that you are not an independent, but rather a reactionary Constitution Party hack. You probably sit on your couch all day watching Fox "News" while cursing the President as a socialist (which he's not, as I, a genuine socialist who has looked at his policies, could tell you) over a beer can. I can't be certain of this over the Internet, of course, but enough time listening to nutty antigovernment rhetoric has taught me a lot.
"""Also, the last point I made in my earlier post is humans SHOULD reduce their carbon footprints simply to reduce pollution. """
You seem to be conflating CO2 emissions with general pollution, which is technically used only for nastier chemicals like sulfur and nitrogen oxides.
"""Do you think humans should NOT reduce their carbon footprints ? """
If you have read my previous posts, I think that humans should both cut their individual carbon footprints and start to reduce the population. A two-child policy would be a good start.
"""I get the feeling you just like to post your inane drivel simply to annoy people. """
Blatant nastiness, but such is life. I'm not complaining about the insult itself, but about its low intellectual quality.
"""Get lost and stop wasting our time."""
Dude, that's MY line! That's what the scientist says to the nutty troll to provoke him more! [removes tongue from cheek]
13inches,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is more important? That we are in the Quaternary period or that we are in the Holocene epoch of the Quaternary period? The Holocene epoch resulted in human civilization. If the Holocene epoch ends as a result of an extinction event outside of human control such as a large asteroid impact, that will then be the destiny of human civilization. And it is reasonable to believe that a mass extinction event will eventually result -- as you said -- from "hundreds of variables (including atronomical cycles and ocean currents and solar flares and reduced or increased solar output and plate tectonics and earth axis tilt and wobble etc etc)."
But that is all simply a red herring when it comes to anthropogenic global warming. Why should we destroy ourselves, whether it be from nuclear war or pollution (which you said you are concerned about)? There has been little progress in cap-and-trade policies (a Republican idea, btw); so I find your fear of economic armageddon irrational (especially when such policies can be reversed).
Either you believe CO2 is a greenhouse gas (by its absorption of IR radiation) and is warming out planet or you don't. Simple physics provided the correct answer over 100 years ago. [And you understand why diatomic molecules like N2 and O2 are not greenhouse gases.]
It is also quite possible that the increased CO2 might be saving us from the next glaciation (then ending the Holocene). If you look at the temperature data over the Quaternary period, our Holocene interglacial has lasted a long time (12k yrs). Why would we expect it not to end? It eventually will end. However, there's no telling when the Holocene would end without humans. This is similar to the idea that the Yellowstone supervolcano is due for another eruption, but does that mean it will happen in the next 10k years? No.
Thank you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I don't know but from my simplistic observation Mother Nature likes to balance things out"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSimplistic is a very kind understatement ..
What you say about Met Office is not true.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere is Met Office on that: http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/
Hey, who cares about the facts? Those denialists are starved for illogical arguments, you know! ;)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSea level has been rising over thousands of years, and may continue to rise, and there is a proven human component. Water is being drawn out of global aquifers faster than replenishment. One study says 15-25% of the sea level rise is from the net ground water removal. Now consider that more and more biofuel feedstock is being grown over tens of millions of acres, and much of it requires irrigation. So the effect of environmentalism promoting biofuel is to raise the seas.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Groundwater depletion most acute in India, Pakistan, the US and China Large-scale groundwater extraction for irrigation, drinking water or industry results in an annual rise in sea levels of approximately 0.8 mm, accounting for about one-quarter of total annual sea-level rise (3.1 mm). According to hydrologists from Utrecht University and the research institute Deltares, the rise in sea levels can be attributed to the fact that most of the groundwater extracted ultimately winds up in the sea. The hydrologists explain their findings in an article to be published in the near future in the journal Geophysical Research Letters." ttp://www.uu.nl/EN/Current/Pages/Wereldwijdonttrekkenvangrondwaterleidttotzeespiegelstijging.aspx
"""One study says 15-25% of the sea level rise is from the net ground water removal. """
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSpeaking as someone who has studied many aspects of environmental science, that is impossible. Citation, please. When you make a ludicrous claim like that, you need a citation.
Michael Mann (Co-author):
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Given the widely noted increase in the warming effects of rising greenhouse gas concentrations, it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008."
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/06/27/1102467108.abstract
It is good that the pause in global warming is being acknowledged in published papers.
Why has not the president heard about it?
"More sea ice around the Arctic Ocean is disappearing than had been forecast."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisArctic sea ice loss is cyclic.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Arctic air temperature change amplification and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation
Abstract
Understanding Arctic temperature variability is essential for assessing possible future melting of the Greenland ice sheet, Arctic sea ice and Arctic permafrost. Temperature trend reversals in 1940 and 1970 separate two Arctic warming periods (1910–1940 and 1970–2008) by a significant 1940–1970 cooling period. Analyzing temperature records of the Arctic meteorological stations we find that (a) the Arctic amplification (ratio of the Arctic to global temperature trends) is not a constant but varies in time on a multi-decadal time scale, (b) the Arctic warming from 1910 – 1940 proceeded at a significantly faster rate than the current 1970 – 2008 warming, and (c) the Arctic temperature changes are highly correlated with the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) suggesting the Atlantic Ocean thermohaline circulation is linked to the Arctic temperature variability on a multi-decadal time scale.
http://www.lanl.gov/source/orgs/ees/ees14/pdfs/09Chlylek.pdf
Big deal. I don't care about Global Warming, Climate Change or whatever. Who gives a crap.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are so diligent in responding rapidly to any climate change article. Are you a professional climate change scientist?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Elizab, There has indeed been warming. The past 7 years have been the hottest on record! The only reason they can say there hasn't been GLOBAL warming since 1998 is because they havn't ran enough tests and a region of antarctica is going through a short cooling period. Otherwise it would have been listed as major warming- everywhere else heat is on the rise at an alarming rate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this