Reasons not to worry (Climate change debate)

[pwagen]

Oceanic heating will not cause significant thermal expansion. I could site various papers on it but let's just stick to the IPCC's.

Yes, because why would you want anyone else's opinion now that yours has been "confirmed"?

[swansont]

We do not fully understand the effect of increased CO2 in the air.

We don't have a full understanding of anything in science. That doesn't mean we have no understanding, or that we have insufficient understanding to do useful things.

 

We do understand that the process of humans putting lots of it into the air will be short lived (next couple of decades before we have something better) and that the effects will be very minor if any.

Who is this mythical "we", and how do you know these things?

 

I do get the exact same arguments fired at me when ever any slight climate change is mentioned. Increased humidity of arctic air over Greenland is unlikley to cause significant trouble with trafic flows.

How do you come by this knowledge?

Oceanic heating will not cause significant thermal expansion. I could site various papers on it but let's just stick to the IPCC's.

You could? There are papers that contradict the currently-measured thermal expansion coefficient of water?

[Tim the plumber]

Does Greenland have much in the way of trafic to get messed about by increased snow fall in your world?

[John Cuthber]

Alterations in the humidity over Greenland may well cause problems in other countries.

So, once again, "How do you come by this knowledge?"

[swansont]

We do not fully understand the effect of increased CO2 in the air. We do understand that the process of humans putting lots of it into the air will be short lived (next couple of decades before we have something better) and that the effects will be very minor if any.

 

The people who understand this disagree with you. Well, 97% of them.

 

If you can't even present that simple fact properly, why would anyone consider any other material as factual. Uncited material, I might add.

[D H]

Increased humidity of arctic air over Greenland is unlikley to cause significant trouble with trafic flows.

 

If this nonsense was supposed to be an argument against that global warming, nope, it didn't work. If it was an attempt to move the goal posts, that didn't work, either. If it was an attempt at humor, that too didn't work.

 

If it was an attempt to show that you have a lousy command of the English language, yep, that worked.

[Tim the plumber]

The numbers presented by the IPCC say that there is no significant problem to worry about.

 

Do you have any peer reviewed papers which suggest otherwise?

[swansont]

The numbers presented by the IPCC say that there is no significant problem to worry about.

 

 

I don't believe you.

 

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf

 

(emphasis in original)

earlier timing of spring events and poleward and upward shifts in plant and animal ranges are with very high confidence linked to recent warming

…

 

In some marine and freshwater systems, shifts in ranges and changes in algal, plankton and fish abundance are with high confidence associated with rising water temperatures, as well as related changes in ice cover, salinity, oxygen levels and circulation

…

 

There is very high confidence that the net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming

…

 

There is high confidence that neither adaptation nor mitigation alone can avoid all climate change impacts; however, they can complement each other and together can significantly reduce the risks of climate change

…

 

Human influences have very likely contributed to sea level rise during the latter half of the 20th century

…

 

Continued GHG emissions at or above current rates would cause further warming and induce many changes in the global climate system during the 21st century that would very likely be larger than those observed during the 20th century

 

That doesn't sound like a "don't worry be happy" message to me.

 

If you're talking specifically about predictions of sea-level rise

 

Because understanding of some important effects driving sea level rise is too limited, this report does not assess the likelihood, nor provide a best estimate or an upper bound for sea level rise.

 

This is not the same as saying there is no problem.

[Tim the plumber]

THE NUMBERS THAT THE IPCC PUBLISHED say there is nothing to worry about.

 

That is there is not going to be any significant sea level rise (below knee high). There will be no disaterous warming (3.2 degrees max) by 2100.

 

I acept that it has been a warm period recently. It may get a bit warmer still. So what?

 

We will be using other tecnologies to produce most of our power within the next couple of decades. If we acept the premise of CO2 induced warming then there is still nothing to cause us to lose sleep.

[John Cuthber]

Well, I guess it's progress that you accept that there will be changes.

Now check out the effect of a 3 degree change in the mean, on the probability of an extreme (pick a few values and see what happens).

 

And, of course, it's not going to get warmer everywhere.

So, if the gulf stream shuts down and the UK cools by a few degrees on average, look at what that does to the growing season.

 

Then start losing sleep again.

 

Consider Tuvalu, where the highest point is only about 15 feet above sea level and see what that "knee high" water will do.

[EdEarl]

One of the really big worries is the sea warming to the point that methane hydrate thaws and releases vast quantities of methane into the atmosphere. It is a huge unknown, and 3 degrees is not expected to cause it. But, if it does, we definitely should have worried before it happened, because afterward is too late. Estimates include many megatons of explosions.

 

 

Methane clathrates and climate change

 

Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas. Despite its short atmospheric half life of 7 years, methane has a global warming potential of 62 over 20 years and 21 over 100 years (IPCC, 1996; Berner and Berner, 1996; vanLoon and Duffy, 2000). The sudden release of large amounts of natural gas from methane clathrate deposits has been hypothesized as a cause of past and possibly future climate changes. Events possibly linked in this way are the Permian-Triassic extinction event and the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum.

 

Climate scientists like James E. Hansen hypothesize that methane clathrates in the permafrost regions will be released consequent to global warming, unleashing powerful feedback forces which may cause runaway climate change that cannot be controlled.

Recent research carried out in 2008 in the Siberian Arctic has shown millions of tonnes of methane being released[37][38][39][40][41] with concentrations in some regions reaching up to 100 times above normal.[42]

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_hydrate

[swansont]

THE NUMBERS THAT THE IPCC PUBLISHED say there is nothing to worry about.

 

Which numbers are you referring to? "The numbers" doesn't really narrow anything down much. And if it's true, why do they then explain that there's a bunch of stuff to worry about?

 

(and besides, they use 7, and that's a lot to worry about. Seven ate nine)

 

That is there is not going to be any significant sea level rise (below knee high). There will be no disaterous warming (3.2 degrees max) by 2100.

 

They specifically do not address all of the effects contributing to sea level rise, as I quoted above, so I think you need to cite exactly what you're talking about. There are scenarios referenced in the report that have a higher upper bound than 3.2 degrees.

 

[Essay]

THE NUMBERS THAT THE IPCC PUBLISHED say there is nothing to worry about.

 

That is there is not going to be any significant sea level rise (below knee high). There will be no disaterous warming (3.2 degrees max) by 2100.

 

I acept that it has been a warm period recently. It may get a bit warmer still. So what?

 

We will be using other tecnologies to produce most of our power within the next couple of decades. If we acept the premise of CO2 induced warming then there is still nothing to cause us to lose sleep.

 

...and after 2100, who will care?

 

...Where we are today....

 

"So what?" -->You are Here!

 

~

[swansont]

Media Overlooking 90% of Global Warming

 

http://skepticalscience.com/clarifying-continuation-global-warming.html

 

 

When reading this I was thinking that temperature doesn't always tell you that heat is being transferred (e.g. water with ice in it is always at the freezing point as long as there is ice in it), so since most of the heating is going to the oceans it's not a surprise that focusing on air temperature is the wrong focus.

[BrightQuark]

I've been reading Geoffrey Parker's Global Crisis, at 700 pages or so, it's not an easy read, but anyway, it's an historical account of the so-called "little ice age" which occurred around the 17th century.

 

It's impossible for the public to grasp what is happening with respect to global warming, the scientists appear to have lost the confidence of many people, whereas many are deeply unsettled.

I'm aware that there's an argument out there for periods of cooling, something the earth goes through, but given the quantities of greenhouse gases that we're continually pumping out, it's difficult to believe that that's all that we're seeing.

Edited June 25, 2013 by BrightQuark

[Tim the plumber]

...and after 2100, who will care?

 

...Where we are today....

 

"So what?" -->You are Here!

 

~

I'll bother to respond to this as I'm sured you are presenting a straw man argument for me to demolish. There's just no way anyone numerate would come out with such a graph.

 

Since we have been recording temperature with thermometers there have been occaisions where the climate has warmed more quickly than the period 1970-98. Since 1998 it's not warmed of course.

 

The "trick" you have used to create the above graph ("trick" is giving it too much credit) is to present a very very long time scale climate temperature graph with the noise of sudden small scale temperature variations removed alongside the extended line of a very very short temperature climate graph.

 

If you had chose the period 1998 - now then of course you would have a flat line showing that over the next few thousand years there will be no climate change at all. That would be equally stupid of course.

 

When exactly is the point of us using fosil fuel? 1650 when we were just starting to use coal? 1820 when we serriously started to industrialise? 1950 when we actually started to use the stuff in quantities similar to today?

 

You see, if the amount we used in 1820 was at all capable of affecting the world's climate the by now we should be Venus2. If you chose 1950 you have to explain why the temperature did not rise from that point. You also will have problems explaining the flat line over the last 15 years.

 

Of course the problem of posting such drivel with no mechanisim, no actual reason to expect that this prediction of an 8 degree temperature rise will be not understood by any one who needs a pretty graph to look at. Reading this far and maintaining your concentration will be beyond you. Although, as I've said, I think you have to be taking the preverbial.

 

The idea of having a climate prediction of thousands of years is also mind staggering. To do so you have assumed that our tecnology will remain the same over that period. Imagine going back a thousand years and discussing the trouble with fossil fuel!!! If this issue is a thousands of years thing then we definately have a few decades to deceide if it's real and find better ways of making electricity.

[Essay]

I'll bother to respond to this as I'm sured you are presenting a straw man argument for me to demolish. There's just no way anyone numerate would come out with such a graph.

....

Tim, thanks for the compliment. I wish I could make nice graphs such as this; however the graph is from Scientific American.

It was from this article: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-last-great-global-warming

...with lots of ads and pop-ups.

Or you can access a blog-linked summary via:

http://climatecrocks.com/2011/06/29/graph-of-the-day-scientific-american-on-todays-greenhouse-vs-history-the-petm/

The blog also has an 8 minute video of Jim Hansen explaining where the CO2 came from, 55 Mya; and he also mentions how "relatively stable" the climate has been for civilization, over the past 12,000 years.

I'll try to forward your points and objections on to the folks at NASA and Scientific American.

~

[swansont]

Tim the plumber, on 28 Jun 2013 - 12:48, said:

Since 1998 it's not warmed of course.

Repeating a lie doesn't make it true.

[Tim the plumber]

Repeating a lie doesn't make it true.

Has the average global temperature changed by more than the limit of obsevable accuracy since 1998?

 

 

Tim, thanks for the compliment. I wish I could make nice graphs such as this; however the graph is from Scientific American.

Just because it's published in a glossy famous mag does not make it decent.

 

Do you have any point which makes my argument that it's drivel wrong?

[D H]

Has the average global temperature changed by more than the limit of obsevable accuracy since 1998?

 

Just because it's published in a glossy famous mag does not make it decent.

 

Do you have any point which makes my argument that it's drivel wrong?

 

Your argument is a cherry-pickin' lie. Why do the promulgators of that lie always cherry-pick 1998? Why not 2000, or 1996? Why not any year before 1996? Simple: 1997-1998 was a huge El Nino event. Year-to-year variations such as that El Nino need to be smoothed away to see what is happening on a decadal or longer time frame. Smooth out those variations, and yes, the global climate is still warming.

 

Every single year from 2001 on has been hotter than 98 of the 100 years in the 20th century.

[swansont]

Has the average global temperature changed by more than the limit of obsevable accuracy since 1998?

 

Ah, but that wasn't your claim. As D H points out, it's cherry-picking the date, but you made an even stronger statement: "Since 1998 it's not warmed of course." That claim implies that you can statistically exclude warming. 2005 and 2010 were warmer than 1998 for both land and ocean, and 2003 had a higher ocean temperature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record#Warmest_years

 

As the link points out in my previous post, most of the warming is in the ocean anyway. Your statement is indeed a lie.

[overtone]

 

The "trick" you have used to create the above graph ("trick" is giving
it too much credit) is to present a very very long time scale climate
temperature graph with the noise of sudden small scale temperature
variations removed alongside the extended line of a very very short
temperature climate graph.

That's not a trick, that's sound reasoning. Of course we want to remove noise and average short term fluctuations (such as year by year lower atmosphere air temperature blips during El Nino) when we are trying to predict overall trends on a century or millenium scale. How else are we to identify the century or longer term trends?

 

The source you are using for your assertions is lying to you. Why are they doing that?

[swansont]

In the time since we have recorded data, no year before 1973 was as hot as 1973, and every year since 1978 has been hotter than 1978.

 

http://imgur.com/OFIc1vM

[CJMark5]

I think this Video shows that man made Global warming is a lie (www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ) but I'm not saying there is no global warming just that man is not making it.

[EdEarl]

I think this Video shows that man made Global warming is a lie (www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ) but I'm not saying there is no global warming just that man is not making it.

There are still people who believe the world is flat. I suppose they would still insist it was flat if they visited the ISS and saw it was round.