ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 27th February 2019, 07:07 PM   #1
Hercules56
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,902
Question about climate change

Good evening.

I have a question about global warming that I was hoping folks could help me with.

I see from the Vostok ice core data graph 2, posted in a link below, that over the last 18,000 years CO2 ppm has gradually increased from about 180 ppm to a little less than 300 ppm.

However during this period of gradual CO2 ppm increase, we see average temperatures often increase dramatically (+2.5C) then decrease dramatically, even though there is no sudden change in CO2 ppm (according to the graph).

My question is: do the Vostok ice cores also show periods of rapid and sudden CO2 ppm increase with no corresponding increase in temperature?

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Pre...ook/index.html

Thanks for your help.
Hercules56 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2019, 08:21 PM   #2
macdoc
Philosopher
 
macdoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Planet earth on slow boil
Posts: 7,964
You are perhaps confusing CO2 as feedback versus a forcing.

Quote:
CO2 as a Feedback and Forcing in the Climate System
https://www.yaleclimateconnections.o...limate-system/

The oceans are warming as we exit the Great Ice age and that releases more C02 in a feedback loop.
Along come us and we introduce fossil carbon and a new forcing but I assume you understand that

The exit from an ice age is jagged

This reads current to the left.



as the climate oscillates for a variety of reasons including forest cover, ocean current changes, volcanism, even continental drift on a long scale plus variations in the Milankovitch cycles versus the tilt of the planet.
http://www.indiana.edu/~geol105/imag...lankovitch.htm

The rapid shifts ( in geological terms ) are not CO2 driven - for instance an bollide strike MIGHT have caused the sudden change to the climate some 14,000 years ago where the Ice Age exit was suddenly reversed....( Younger Dryas )
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/abrupt-cli...ounger%20Dryas

Crazy amount of controversy around the event ...good read.

Hope that helps.

Last edited by macdoc; 27th February 2019 at 08:22 PM.
macdoc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th February 2019, 09:16 PM   #3
Hercules56
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,902
Originally Posted by macdoc View Post
You are perhaps confusing CO2 as feedback versus a forcing.



https://www.yaleclimateconnections.o...limate-system/

The oceans are warming as we exit the Great Ice age and that releases more C02 in a feedback loop.
Along come us and we introduce fossil carbon and a new forcing but I assume you understand that

The exit from an ice age is jagged

This reads current to the left.

https://serc.carleton.edu/download/i..._core_data.png

as the climate oscillates for a variety of reasons including forest cover, ocean current changes, volcanism, even continental drift on a long scale plus variations in the Milankovitch cycles versus the tilt of the planet.
http://www.indiana.edu/~geol105/imag...lankovitch.htm

The rapid shifts ( in geological terms ) are not CO2 driven - for instance an bollide strike MIGHT have caused the sudden change to the climate some 14,000 years ago where the Ice Age exit was suddenly reversed....( Younger Dryas )
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/abrupt-cli...ounger%20Dryas

Crazy amount of controversy around the event ...good read.

Hope that helps.
First of all, you REALLY know your stuff and I appreciate that.

Though I think you're a bit above my head.

I see and understand that rapid climate shifts are not CO2 driven, as far as the Vostok ice core data is concerned. This is due to CO2 concentrations changing very gradually, from what I gather.

The prevailing logic is that the sudden and dramatic increase in CO2 ppm will lead to an equally sudden and dramatic increase in avg Earth temperatures and related climate changes.

My real question is: if we have never seen such a quick and dramatic CO2 concentration increase before in the geologic record, how do we know how temperature and climate will react? Is it all just an assumption or do we have actual historical data that could corroborate such a climate model?

Yes, I know that the Vostok ice core data shows a clear corollation between CO2 ppm and temp. changes, but as I pointed out in my OP there is data from the same ice cores that show rapid temperature changes without any corresponding CO2 changes, and that makes me wonder if the opposite scenario may be possible.

Cheers.
Hercules56 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2019, 10:28 AM   #4
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,815
Originally Posted by Hercules56 View Post
First of all, you REALLY know your stuff and I appreciate that.

Though I think you're a bit above my head.

I see and understand that rapid climate shifts are not CO2 driven, as far as the Vostok ice core data is concerned. This is due to CO2 concentrations changing very gradually, from what I gather.

The prevailing logic is that the sudden and dramatic increase in CO2 ppm will lead to an equally sudden and dramatic increase in avg Earth temperatures and related climate changes.

My real question is: if we have never seen such a quick and dramatic CO2 concentration increase before in the geologic record, how do we know how temperature and climate will react? Is it all just an assumption or do we have actual historical data that could corroborate such a climate model?

Yes, I know that the Vostok ice core data shows a clear corollation between CO2 ppm and temp. changes, but as I pointed out in my OP there is data from the same ice cores that show rapid temperature changes without any corresponding CO2 changes, and that makes me wonder if the opposite scenario may be possible.

Cheers.
Actually Mac explained it exactly correct, but you are still stuck.

CO2 can be both a feedback and a forcing. When it is a feedback, the temperature change is caused by something else, and the CO2 changes follow, modifying the result.

But deep in the geological past, we humans were not burning fossil fuels or plowing up the grasslands or chopping down the forests. So the CO2 as the primary forcing event is pretty rare. Usually it was a reinforcing feedback for some other forcing like the Milankovitch Cycle.

This time it is different though. We will still see the feedback of course, but we also are burning huge quantities of fossil fuels. So the initial spike in temps is not from milankovitch cycles, but instead is human caused.

This is why the proper term is Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), and not just ordinary natural global warming. Once the natural feedback CO2 hits we are in big troubles if we haven't already started pretty substantial worldwide efforts to mitigate what's coming.

Luckily it's like a slow motion train wreck. We still have time to get off the tracks. But the longer we delay the worse it will be. It's the old paradigm "A stitch in time saves nine".
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2019, 07:40 PM   #5
Hercules56
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,902
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
Actually Mac explained it exactly correct, but you are still stuck.

CO2 can be both a feedback and a forcing. When it is a feedback, the temperature change is caused by something else, and the CO2 changes follow, modifying the result.

But deep in the geological past, we humans were not burning fossil fuels or plowing up the grasslands or chopping down the forests. So the CO2 as the primary forcing event is pretty rare. Usually it was a reinforcing feedback for some other forcing like the Milankovitch Cycle.
So I must ask, if in most of the geologic record CO2 was not a cause of global warming but its increase was simply a reaction to other environmental factors, how do we know for sure that our rapid increase in CO2 ppm can in fact become a forcing element to world temps? How can we know if we have no actual evidence of it ever happening before? How can we know for sure, if the geologic record has examples of world temps increasing and decreasing rapidly without any significant change in CO2 levels?

Another thing that concerns me is that the Vostok graphs that we are all very familiar with, and Al Gore famously displaced in "An Inconvenient Truth", covers CO2 and temperatures over 400,000 years. Those graphs showed a pretty good corrolation between CO2 and temperatures...over 400,000 years.

But if we look at Vostok data over the last 18,000 years, the corrollation isn't as perfect. It generally follows, but there are several examples where it does not. There are several examples where temps went up 2 degrees celsius or MORE, without any significant change in CO2. Temps also went down 2 degrees, again with no changes in CO2.

and all the IPCC predictions are not for the next 10,000 years...or 1,000 years...but merely 100 years.

If the corrolation between CO2 ppm and temperature changes becomes less and less clear and exact the shorter the time period we observe, and we have in the geologic record lots of examples of world temps going UP or DOWN 2+ degrees without any significant change in CO2, how the hell can we possible predict what will happen by 2100 if we increase CO2 ppm to say 500 or 600 ppm?

I know I sound like a climate change denier, but Im not. Im just trying to fully understand the logic and science behind IPCC predictions and analysis, considering the little bits of data that are available to the public, such as only three examples of Vostok ice core graphs
Hercules56 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2019, 10:52 PM   #6
macdoc
Philosopher
 
macdoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Planet earth on slow boil
Posts: 7,964
Quote:
So I must ask, if in most of the geologic record CO2 was not a cause of global warming but its increase was simply a reaction to other environmental factors, how do we know for sure that our rapid increase in CO2 ppm can in fact become a forcing element to world temps? How can we know if we have no actual evidence of it ever happening before? How can we know for sure, if the geologic record has examples of world temps increasing and decreasing rapidly without any significant change in CO2 levels?
You are far off track here ...C02 IS a forcing element ....if you can't get that far you don't belong here. It's a table top experiment for science fairs.

It's in the oceans and when released by a warming climate or absorbed by a cooling climate due to the Milankovich cycles - the feedback aspect is the ocean absorption release cause by another external forcing ( Milankovich and the sun/tilt )

As far as it happening before ...it certainly has ..try looking up Siberian traps.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNs9U4qVOII

and

https://www.livescience.com/41909-ne...xtinction.html

This is the very long term concern as we are actually releasing more CO2 per year than the SIberian traps ....but that increase occurred over a very long period. We are doing it in hundreds of years if not 10s.

As far as how do we know ?? Climatologists have more and more sophisticated models that closely follow the impact of rising C02. The hard thing to predict is what we will do in terms of controlling, reducing or even removing CO2.

James Hansen made an incredible prediction - he modelled three scenarios in 1988...the black line is the actual temperature observed.



BTW Skeptical Science is a very good resource to answer questions
https://www.skepticalscience.com/Han...prediction.htm

as is

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...05/start-here/

run by climate scientists ...not retired weathermen

Even Forbes gets it correct when they hire the correct writers
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startsw.../#4d5d01ea6614

The more difficult known unknown is how sensitive the climate is to CO2 ...the down side is that every time we hone on on a more accurate assessment of that it comes on the high side of outcomes ie more sensitive.

So yeah there are still details ....but bottom line it's getting warmer, we're responsible and have only a decade left to limit the damage.

Me? ....don't think we will short of a Manhattan Project level response by the whole world or a very early and significant tech break through in actively removing CO2 from the atmosphere.

There is also geo-engineering but that is fraught as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_engineering

welcome to the Anthropocene.
macdoc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th February 2019, 10:56 PM   #7
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,815
Originally Posted by Hercules56 View Post
So I must ask, if in most of the geologic record CO2 was not a cause of global warming but its increase was simply a reaction to other environmental factors, how do we know for sure that our rapid increase in CO2 ppm can in fact become a forcing element to world temps? How can we know if we have no actual evidence of it ever happening before? How can we know for sure, if the geologic record has examples of world temps increasing and decreasing rapidly without any significant change in CO2 levels?

Another thing that concerns me is that the Vostok graphs that we are all very familiar with, and Al Gore famously displaced in "An Inconvenient Truth", covers CO2 and temperatures over 400,000 years. Those graphs showed a pretty good corrolation between CO2 and temperatures...over 400,000 years.

But if we look at Vostok data over the last 18,000 years, the corrollation isn't as perfect. It generally follows, but there are several examples where it does not. There are several examples where temps went up 2 degrees celsius or MORE, without any significant change in CO2. Temps also went down 2 degrees, again with no changes in CO2.

and all the IPCC predictions are not for the next 10,000 years...or 1,000 years...but merely 100 years.

If the corrolation between CO2 ppm and temperature changes becomes less and less clear and exact the shorter the time period we observe, and we have in the geologic record lots of examples of world temps going UP or DOWN 2+ degrees without any significant change in CO2, how the hell can we possible predict what will happen by 2100 if we increase CO2 ppm to say 500 or 600 ppm?

I know I sound like a climate change denier, but Im not. Im just trying to fully understand the logic and science behind IPCC predictions and analysis, considering the little bits of data that are available to the public, such as only three examples of Vostok ice core graphs

How does rare become never? How does less than expected become none? You are certainly taking little things and making them seem far more important than they really are.

To begin with there are many factors not just one or two. CO2 could be high but the solar cycle low and volcanic activity and albedo high to more than offset those.
So you can't just look at a single factor and know everything in the system. You need to include all the factors. You also need to understand that the earth takes time to heat or cool simply due to its huge size. So temps can be cool, while the radiative imbalance is still increased. Just watch a pot boil, the cliche' but highlights the delayed effect, and multiply that by a gazillion!

Maybe it would have gone down 4 degrees, but the high CO2 meant it only went down 2 degrees. Or maybe it would have dropped a degree, but the high CO2 made it rise 2 degrees instead? See what I mean? You can't just look at single factors and expect to understand. It's like jumping up in a falling elevator, are you really going upwards? Or just slightly less downwards? Until you include all the factors, you really can't know.

However there are those that have studied the empirical evidence with a skeptical eye.
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management

Last edited by Red Baron Farms; 28th February 2019 at 11:00 PM.
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2019, 09:39 AM   #8
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 11,001
We know that increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere will increase average surface temperature because CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

The climate system is extremely complicated, at any one time there will be several forcings and feedbacks in play. Some will be in the same direction and will reinforce each other, and others will be in opposite directions and will tend to cancel each other out. You can't expect to look at one single component of the climate system, like the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and see it rising and falling in sync with global temperatures.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2019, 11:03 AM   #9
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,913
Originally Posted by Hercules56 View Post
Good evening.

I have a question about global warming that I was hoping folks could help me with.

I see from the Vostok ice core data graph 2, posted in a link below, that over the last 18,000 years CO2 ppm has gradually increased from about 180 ppm to a little less than 300 ppm.

However during this period of gradual CO2 ppm increase, we see average temperatures often increase dramatically (+2.5C) then decrease dramatically, even though there is no sudden change in CO2 ppm (according to the graph).

My question is: do the Vostok ice cores also show periods of rapid and sudden CO2 ppm increase with no corresponding increase in temperature?

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Pre...ook/index.html

Thanks for your help.
Most of the "Temperature changes" you are seeing are noise in the proxy data or reflect changes in local conditions. There is enormous thermal inertia in the system so global temperatures do not actually change that fast. You can think of most of those rapid ups/downs as being a reflection on uncertainty in that particular proxy rather than actual changes.

The best approach to temperature reconstruction is to combine as many different proxy's as possible. The more data you have the less uncertainty there is and the smoother the whole thing looks. You never remove all the uncertainty though, and uncertainty is typically greater the farther back in time you look because there are fewer proxies to look at.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2019, 11:48 AM   #10
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,913
This link has some temperature reconstructions that more accurately show what global temperatures were doing over the last 15000 years.
https://skepticalscience.com/the-two...f-marcott.html

This spike in temperatures since 1900 may represent the fastest global warming in the last 65 million years while ocean acidification may be the fastest in 300million years.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2019, 04:43 PM   #11
Hercules56
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,902
Originally Posted by macdoc View Post
You are far off track here ...C02 IS a forcing element ....if you can't get that far you don't belong here. It's a table top experiment for science fairs.

It's in the oceans and when released by a warming climate or absorbed by a cooling climate due to the Milankovich cycles - the feedback aspect is the ocean absorption release cause by another external forcing ( Milankovich and the sun/tilt )

As far as it happening before ...it certainly has ..try looking up Siberian traps.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNs9U4qVOII

and

https://www.livescience.com/41909-ne...xtinction.html

This is the very long term concern as we are actually releasing more CO2 per year than the SIberian traps ....but that increase occurred over a very long period. We are doing it in hundreds of years if not 10s.

As far as how do we know ?? Climatologists have more and more sophisticated models that closely follow the impact of rising C02. The hard thing to predict is what we will do in terms of controlling, reducing or even removing CO2.

James Hansen made an incredible prediction - he modelled three scenarios in 1988...the black line is the actual temperature observed.

https://www.skepticalscience.com//pi...SSthru2016.jpg
.
This is fascinating.

Ok, it looks like we may be right that increased CO2 ppm will raise the Earth's average yearly temps. I guess I am finally convinced.

Now, here's my next question: How can we claim to predict with any sort of certainty what the climatic results of this will be?

As a college student I watched "Before the Warming", which I believe is one of the first tv series about Climate Change. Many of its predictions have not yet come true. "An Inconvenient Truth" predicted Ground Zero would be under water. Again, never happened.

I understand that the Earth's climate is a giant and complex mixture of many sub-climates, affected by all sorts of things like sunspots, the Earth's erratically wobbly rotation, tilt relative to the sun. El Nino, La Nina, random volcanic eruptions, the Gulf Stream and connected warm/cold water currents, and lots of other stuff.

I worry that some folks err on the side of extremism when it comes to predicting the effects of Climate Change. Why? Maybe cause its human nature to expect the worst.

If I had to make a bet what the Earth will look like in 30 years, when I turn 72? I predict that the scientists were right about the warming, but did not anticipate all sorts of other environmental factors and events that ended up making reality not even half as bad as their dire predictions. We've seen this happen many times before, and my gut says it will happen again.

Not because folks at the IPCC are dishonest or sadistically wish to scare people into action, but because humans often presume too much and can't foresee everything that the Earth is gonna throw at us.

Do I think we should reduce carbon emissions? Yes. Do I think we should do it in such a rapid and costly way as the Green Deal proposes? No.
Hercules56 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2019, 06:09 PM   #12
macdoc
Philosopher
 
macdoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Planet earth on slow boil
Posts: 7,964
You are fooling yourself ....in a very bad way ....plain old wishful thinking since you now have the information to accept the science.

You saw Hanson's projections from 1988 and he was slightly conservative yet you won't accept the projection and warning of a world group of scientists with far more sophisticated tools than Jim had.
The IPCC reports tends to get watered down by political interests.

Take your thinking and consider the obverse - what happens it's worse ?

I live on The Great Barrier Reef ......it's dying.



Quote:
Apr 19, 2018, 12:24pm
Half Of The Great Barrier Reef Has Died Since 2016

Aerial view of heart-shaped Heart Reef, part of the Great Barrier Reef of the Whitsundays in the Coral sea, Queensland, Australia. (Photo by: Arterra/UIG via Getty Images)
The world's largest coral reef system, visible even from outer space, has lost half of its coral in the past two years. The Great Barrier Reef, once a colorful and visible display of biodiversity and a symbiotic ecosystem, now resembles a ghost town where life once flourished.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorn.../#1b143f6b5f9f

and Forbes is not known for hysteria.

And

Quote:
Miami Will Be Underwater Soon. Its Drinking Water Could Go First
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/featu...-water-problem

Quote:
Rising seas: 'Florida is about to be wiped off the map' | Environment ...
https://www.theguardian.com/.../2018...-elizabeth-rus...
Jun 26, 2018 - Sea level rise: Miami and Atlantic City fight to stay above water ... empty teal swivel chairs – will all be underwater in the not-so-distant future.
Quote:
30 US cities that could be underwater by 2060 - Business Insider
https://www.businessinsider.com/30-u...r-soon-2018-10
Oct 3, 2018 - Livable land that will be underwater by 2060: 25.7% ..... In Miami, king tides are the highest tides of the year and coincide with full moons during
Quote:
Sea Level Rise Will Flood Hundreds of Cities in the Near Future
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/...rming-science/
Jul 12, 2017 - It will affect as many as 670 coastal communities, including Cambridge, Massachusetts; Oakland, California; Miami and St. Petersburg, Florida; ...
macdoc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2019, 12:30 AM   #13
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 11,001
Originally Posted by Hercules56 View Post
Now, here's my next question: How can we claim to predict with any sort of certainty what the climatic results of this will be?
The climate forcing produced by doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is actually quite simple to calculate, it will increase average surface temperature by just over one degree Celsius. What's much harder to calculate is the total effect once positive feedbacks are taken into account. Estimates have ranged from less than 2 degrees to over 5 and a great deal of work has been going on to try to narrow that down, both by looking at past natural climate change and by creating sophisticated computer models. The good news is that most of that work is pointing to a value nearer the lower end of that range than the upper, with a value of around 2.5 to 3 degrees looking most likely.

So far we've increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by about 40%, and average surface temperature has increased by about one degree. At the current rate of emissions we will have doubled it by the end of this century. If we continue to burn fossil fuel until it's all gone we will double it at least once more.

In addition there are knock on effects, such as the thawing of frozen tundra releasing methane (also a greenhouse gas) into the atmosphere.

So although certainty is indeed hard to come by, I think we have a reasonable handle on the scale of the problem we are creating. The IPCC's reports are the best source of information if you want more detail:

https://www.ipcc.ch

It's true that there might be currently unknown factors that could mitigate the effect, but there are just as likely to be currently unknown factors which exacerbate it. What we do know is that past major extinction events always appear to have been associated with rapid climate change.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett

Last edited by Pixel42; 2nd March 2019 at 01:20 AM.
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2019, 08:42 PM   #14
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,913
Originally Posted by Hercules56 View Post
This is fascinating.

Ok, it looks like we may be right that increased CO2 ppm will raise the Earth's average yearly temps. I guess I am finally convinced.
"finally convinced"? It's an application of the first law of thermodynamics, why would you need extra convincing?



Originally Posted by Hercules56 View Post

Now, here's my next question: How can we claim to predict with any sort of certainty what the climatic results of this will be?
That depends on the prediction. With global temperature change for a given CO2 scenario the "predictions" are simply the result of applying the physics and calculating the result. Many different people have replicated the physics and they all arrive at similar results. Furthermore these results agree with the paleo-climate data for similar scenarios. There is A LOT of scientific evidence supporting them.



Originally Posted by Hercules56 View Post

"An Inconvenient Truth" predicted Ground Zero would be under water. Again, never happened.
Did you really watch An Inconvenient Truth or are you just relying on Strawmen that have been published you about it.

An Inconvenient Truth suggests that we could see as much as 20 feet of sea level rise which would put Ground Zero below sea level (not necessarily under water). This is a prediction well supported by the scientific evidence. The best case for reduced CO2 emissions puts as at temperature and atmospheric CO2 levels above the Eemian maximum when sea levels were 20-30 feet higher than today.

What An Inconvenient Truth does no do is predict when this will happen. It certainly never said we should have reached these levels by now. Most estimates say it could take up to 500 years. However, current warming is so far off the scale wrt to how fast it's occurring so it could be much more rapid than that.

Originally Posted by Hercules56 View Post


I understand that the Earth's climate is a giant and complex mixture of many sub-climates, affected by all sorts of things like sunspots, the Earth's erratically wobbly rotation, tilt relative to the sun. El Nino, La Nina, random volcanic eruptions, the Gulf Stream and connected warm/cold water currents, and lots of other stuff.
Global temperature trends are driven by global energy Ballance. Energy out vs energy in. The "complex mixture" you refer to is a function of how the new energy gets distributed in the oceans/atmosphere. Uncertainty in the latter doesn't change the former so regardless of what we scientists uncover, it's highly unlikely to change the global temperature trend that is causing all the havoc.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2019, 01:55 AM   #15
macdoc
Philosopher
 
macdoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Planet earth on slow boil
Posts: 7,964
This is the energy exchange between incoming solar radiation and outgoing infrared radiation.



Greenhouse gases absorb the outgoing IR selectively so the heat slowly accumulates until we reach a new radiative balance.

Unfortunately CO2 is cumulative in the atmosphere for human terms so the more we add the radiative balance continues to be off and the atmosphere gets warmer ( and the oceans importantly ).

Some gases like methane ( cow farts amongst other sources ) are 20x more absorptive but don't stay in the atmosphere as long as CO2...but it speeds the heating when we continue to add to the gases.

There is millions of tons of greenhouse gases ..methane and CO2 locked up in the tundra and continental shelves all over the planet.

Warming starts to release thos gases ....IS releasing those gases.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2785/u...ic-permafrost/





That is a feedback we cannot stop and we cannot predict but we do KNOW and can observe it happening ....so when I said ...what if it's worse than projections ....that's one of the known unknowns....we know it's occuring, we know it's adding greenhouse gases on a very large scale...we do not know the limits of that.....it's a wicked positive feedback and we may have passed the tipping point ......we just don't know but we dare not take the risk.

and just in
Quote:
New research from Arctic: Thawing permafrost peatlands may add to atmospheric CO2 burden
Date:

March 1, 2019
Source:
University of Eastern Finland
Summary:
A new study finds that peatlands may strengthen the permafrost-carbon feedback by adding to the atmospheric CO2 burden post-thaw.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0301101825.htm

Last edited by macdoc; 3rd March 2019 at 02:16 AM.
macdoc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2019, 02:49 AM   #16
macdoc
Philosopher
 
macdoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Planet earth on slow boil
Posts: 7,964
And climate change is not a "future thing" as it was when I first read about its distant threat in the 50s and even in the 80s....when it seemed a far off risk..

It's now ...and costing a lot already ...

Quote:
Sea-level rise has cost homeowners on the East and Gulf coasts nearly $16 billion in property value as floods and the threat of flooding drive some buyers away, according to a study released this week.
Analysts at the nonprofit First Street Foundation in Brooklyn studied millions of residential home sales in 17 states from Maine to Alabama and found that coastal property values were rising at a slower rate in flood-prone areas than in areas that did not flood.
“The market is already reacting,” First Street Executive Director Matthew Eby said. “There’s no longer a conversation of what sea-level rise will do in 2050 or 2100.”
more
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...over-12-years/

Last edited by macdoc; 3rd March 2019 at 02:51 AM.
macdoc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th March 2019, 03:18 AM   #17
novaphile
Quester of Doglets
Moderator
 
novaphile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,907
It's funny how these things affect people in such different ways.

I first heard about "the greenhouse effect" in the mid 70's.

It caused me to join "Friends of the Earth" and later "The Alternative Technology Association".

I build my first solar hot water heater, out of rubbish-dump scraps, before I turned 20.

At no time did I say: "I must buy a car, fit a 12 cylinder diesel engine, and turn up the fuel pump so that it belches toxic black smoke into the air."

__________________
We would be better, and braver, to engage in enquiry, rather than indulge in the idle fancy, that we already know -- Plato.
novaphile is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th March 2019, 01:44 AM   #18
This is The End
 
This is The End's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,774
Originally Posted by Hercules56 View Post
How can we know if we have no actual evidence of it ever happening before?

You mean like Venus?
__________________
________________________
This is The End is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th March 2019, 01:08 PM   #19
Tero
Graduate Poster
 
Tero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: North American prairie
Posts: 1,558
Oh no, not this again. Al Gore is not a scientist.

Buy a book.
https://global.oup.com/academic/prod...cc=us&lang=en&
Tero is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th March 2019, 04:38 AM   #20
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 11,001
The OP hasn't been back to the forum for a week, so either he got the answers he was looking for or he didn't like the answers he did get. In case he comes back, or anyone else is interested, here's a link to a course I've just started called Our Earth's Future:

https://www.coursera.org/learn/earth...ge/home/week/1

It's five weeks but each week is only a couple of hours' study. I've only done the first week so far but I can already recommend it. The course is run by the American Museum of Natural History and contributors include Gavin Schmidt.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2019, 05:59 AM   #21
Warmer1
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 450
Here is the history of CO2 on the Earth.

"NAS member Richard Alley presents on 4.6 Billion Years of Earth’s Climate History: The Role of CO2, during the Symposium—Earths, Moons, Mars & Stars at the National Academy of Sciences 152nd Annual Meeting."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujkcTZZlikg

Also we need to remove hundreds of billions of tons of CO2 from the atmosphere at 22:00 in the following presentation. Please take the time to watch the entire program. Kevin Anderson works at the Tyndall Center. Meeting the 2 degree target will be a miracle and in private a lot of scientists claim that 1.6 degree C increase is the red line we must not cross.

On January 24th 2019, Professor Kevin Anderson addressed the Oxford Climate Society on "climate’s holy trinity: how cogency, tenacity & courage could yet deliver on our Paris 2°C commitment".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BZFvc-ZOa8

This next article most warmers try to ignore.

In a new report by the European Academies’ Science Advisory Council (EASAC), senior scientists from across Europe have evaluated the potential contribution of negative emission technologies (NETs) to allow humanity to meet the Paris Agreement’s targets of avoiding dangerous climate change. They find that NETs have “limited realistic potential” to halt increases in the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at the scale envisioned in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scenarios. This new report finds that none of the NETs has the potential to deliver carbon removals at the gigaton (Gt) scale and at the rate of deployment envisaged by the IPCC, including reforestation, afforestation, carbon-friendly agriculture, bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCs), enhanced weathering, ocean fertilisation, or direct air capture and carbon storage (DACCs).

“Scenarios and projections that suggest that NETs’ future contribution to CO2 removal will allow Paris targets to be met appear optimistic on the basis of current knowledge and should not form the basis of developing, analysing, and comparing scenarios of longer-term energy pathways for the EU. Relying on NETs to compensate for failures to adequately mitigate emissions may have serious implications for future generations," state the European science academies.

https://easac.eu/publications/details/easac-net/

If you watch and read all of this you will have a good idea of how far along we are headed toward mass die off, and how quickly we have to find a massive carbon capture solution.

Last edited by Warmer1; 10th March 2019 at 06:15 AM.
Warmer1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2019, 12:43 PM   #22
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,815
Originally Posted by Warmer1 View Post

This next article mostsome warmerspeople try to ignore.

In a new report by the European Academies’ Science Advisory Council (EASAC), senior scientists from across Europe have evaluated the potential contribution of negative emission technologies (NETs) to allow humanity to meet the Paris Agreement’s targets of avoiding dangerous climate change. They find that NETs have “limited realistic potential” to halt increases in the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at the scale envisioned in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scenarios. This new report finds that none of the NETs has the potential to deliver carbon removals at the gigaton (Gt) scale and at the rate of deployment envisaged by the IPCC, including reforestation, afforestation, carbon-friendly agriculture, bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCs), enhanced weathering, ocean fertilisation, or direct air capture and carbon storage (DACCs).

“Scenarios and projections that suggest that NETs’ future contribution to CO2 removal will allow Paris targets to be met appear optimistic on the basis of current knowledge and should not form the basis of developing, analysing, and comparing scenarios of longer-term energy pathways for the EU. Relying on NETs to compensate for failures to adequately mitigate emissions may have serious implications for future generations," state the European science academies.

https://easac.eu/publications/details/easac-net/

If you watch and read all of this you will have a good idea of how far along we are headed toward mass die off, and how quickly we have to find a massive carbon capture solution.
Lets try to remember, all these are human beings we are talking about. Using such labels tends to shut down conversation.

Next though I have serious issues with the conclusions of EASAC.
Lets take them one by one:
1)reforestation, afforestation
This can help substantially. Even in the Gt range! But I partially agree with EASAC here. There are not enough suitable areas to grow enough trees. Also the maximum pool size saturates relatively quickly. Albedo can even decrease in many cases. Somewhere near 80-100 years later the pools finally completely saturate and their net drops to near zero on in the carbon cycle. So too little too late, but a significant help if it were taken seriously.
2)carbon-friendly agriculture
This could easily offset far more than the EASAC are admitting. This is because they are using outdated soil carbon models like the Roth C model. However, for example worldwide permanent pastures are in the range of 33,585,676 square kilometers and 80% are mismanaged, either overgrazed or undergrazed. That leaves roughly ~2,686,854,080 hectares that could be managed by modern scientific grazing methods and sequester annually ~ 13Gt to 53Gt CO2e/yr more than they are now. 78% of that into the deep carbon cycle and 22% into mid term carbon cycles that eventually saturate like the forests. That's before we even start to talk about arable ground or restoring desertified ground. So clearly the EASAC missed the boat here completely. Liquid carbon pathway unrecognised
3)BeCCS
Actually the EASAC got this part wrong too, but the opposite way. The whole planned system of behind BeCCS is flawed mainly because it runs counter to the above. Scientific American ran a pretty good article why the corn system planned for BeCCS will ultimately fail. It’s Time to Rethink America’s Corn System It's worse than even EASAC wants to admit and should be completely scraped because even attempting it is screwing up the ability of agriculture to mitigate AGW. Worse than failing itself, it is also dragging down other more realistic measures.
4)enhanced weathering, ocean fertilization, or direct air capture and carbon storage
The EASAC analysis of these seems good. I have no knowledge of any mistakes here.
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management

Last edited by Red Baron Farms; 10th March 2019 at 01:05 PM.
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2019, 09:49 PM   #23
Warmer1
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 450
I addressed the statement to warmers, not "some people" which is pretty much meaningless, and it was meant to have a little shock factor because warmers don't want to hear this news and can easily dismiss the information.

" Using such labels tends to shut down conversation." I didn't realize how insensitive it is to refer to someone as being a "warmer." - Warmer1

Last edited by Warmer1; 10th March 2019 at 10:01 PM.
Warmer1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2019, 10:15 PM   #24
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,815
Originally Posted by Warmer1 View Post
I addressed the statement to warmers, not "some people" which is pretty much meaningless, and it was meant to have a little shock factor because warmers don't want to hear this news and can easily dismiss the information.

" Using such labels tends to shut down conversation." I didn't realize how insensitive it is to refer to someone as being a "warmer." - Warmer1
Most Skeptics follow the evidence wherever it leads. They don't start by choosing a "camp" to identify with first. If tomorrow the balance of evidence should change, so would a skeptic's opinion on AGW.
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th March 2019, 04:52 PM   #25
Hercules56
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,902
In 1989, the UN predicted disaster if we did not stop GHG emissions by 2020.

https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf11...vkVOKVZt68Gvhk

Of course we know disaster did not strike in 2000. Or 2010. Or will it likely occur in 2020.

What are folks to think when they see such chicken-little predictions that clearly did not come true? We're supposed to listen to folks who say "well, back then the chicken littles were wrong, but now we are right!!!!".

Something tells me in 20 years, someone will ask the same question again. And we'll likely get the same response: "oh, its coming, don't you worry!!!".

Hercules56 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th March 2019, 04:54 PM   #26
Hercules56
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,902
Originally Posted by This is The End View Post
You mean like Venus?
Venus, is not Earth.
Hercules56 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th March 2019, 05:00 PM   #27
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,815
Originally Posted by Hercules56 View Post
In 1989, the UN predicted disaster if we did not stop GHG emissions by 2020.

https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf11...vkVOKVZt68Gvhk

Of course we know disaster did not strike in 2000. Or 2010. Or will it likely occur in 2020.

What are folks to think when they see such chicken-little predictions that clearly did not come true? We're supposed to listen to folks who say "well, back then the chicken littles were wrong, but now we are right!!!!".

Something tells me in 20 years, someone will ask the same question again. And we'll likely get the same response: "oh, its coming, don't you worry!!!".

The best analogy is the slow train wreck. You can see it coming and there is time to get off the tracks. And because it is so slow people keep trying to get around the hazard barriers and warning bells. About the only way to get hurt by it is to ignore the warnings. But if you did and judged it even a little off, the train wreck is devastating because it has such huge momentum even though the speed isn't that bad.

The Earth has many orders of magnitude more momentum than a train. The critical time to make sure we "get off the tracks" is now. But this is geological time "now" which seems incredibly slow to fast paced humans.
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th March 2019, 05:47 PM   #28
Hercules56
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,902
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
The best analogy is the slow train wreck. You can see it coming and there is time to get off the tracks. And because it is so slow people keep trying to get around the hazard barriers and warning bells. About the only way to get hurt by it is to ignore the warnings. But if you did and judged it even a little off, the train wreck is devastating because it has such huge momentum even though the speed isn't that bad.

The Earth has many orders of magnitude more momentum than a train. The critical time to make sure we "get off the tracks" is now. But this is geological time "now" which seems incredibly slow to fast paced humans.
I'd honestly be more likely to accept the Doom & Gloom predictions if they were being driven by scientists and not politicians and former waitresses.
Hercules56 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th March 2019, 06:29 PM   #29
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,815
Originally Posted by Hercules56 View Post
I'd honestly be more likely to accept the Doom & Gloom predictions if they were being driven by scientists and not politicians and former waitresses.
There is no reason to accept the doom and gloom at all. Just get off the tracks so the train won't hit you.

Do you literally start crying doom and gloom every time a train goes by? I sure don't. Trains are only scary if you are too stupid to get off the Damn tracks!

AGW is even less scary than a train, if we simply balance the carbon cycle. It isn't really even that hard or expensive. NOT avoiding AGW is far more scary and more expensive.
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management

Last edited by Red Baron Farms; 19th March 2019 at 06:31 PM.
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2019, 01:48 AM   #30
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 11,001
Originally Posted by Hercules56 View Post
In 1989, the UN predicted disaster if we did not stop GHG emissions by 2020.

https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf11...vkVOKVZt68Gvhk
This article is from 1989 and is quoting the words of "the director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program", not an official IPCC report. There's a weird reference to a "1 to 7" degrees (C or F is not specified) temperature rise in the next 30 years. I suspect the 7 is a typo and should have been a 2. The long term consequences of failing to reduce emissions to halt AGW are described accurately. No date is specified for these consequences.

The temperature rise actually predicted by the IPCC in its first (1990) report was around 0.25 degrees Celsius per decade, dropping to 0.15- 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade in subsequent reports.

Here's the graph of observed global surface temperature. There has been a rise of about 0.6 degrees Celsius (1 degree Fahrenheit) since 1989:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instru...re_Anomaly.svg
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett

Last edited by Pixel42; 20th March 2019 at 01:52 AM.
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2019, 05:24 AM   #31
Delvo
الشيطان الأبيض
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 8,018
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
The long term consequences of failing to reduce emissions to halt AGW are described accurately. No date is specified for these consequences.
"If we don't prevent Thing X from happening at Time X, then Thing Y will happen at Time Y"

Response: "Time X is here and Thing Y hasn't happened yet, so it was a hoax!"
Delvo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2019, 05:26 AM   #32
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 83,907
Originally Posted by Hercules56 View Post
Venus, is not Earth.
It's remarkably similar, if conditions go too far here.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2019, 10:24 PM   #33
macdoc
Philosopher
 
macdoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Planet earth on slow boil
Posts: 7,964
It's not

Quote:
Koll calculated that for Earth the runaway temperature threshold was at 340 °K (67 °C) – thankfully far beyond the current average surface temperature of about 285 °K (12 °C).

Such dramatic temperature rises could only be possible through cataclysmic events, such as increasing solar outputs over billions of years of the sun’s evolution. The EAPS work suggests that the more modest, yet still dangerous, climate change-inducing temperature rises the existing model predicts for Earth will see the linear relation hold true.

So, while Earth won’t go the way of Venus any time soon, a warming planet still means a hotter world despite the increasing heat escaping into space.
https://cosmosmagazine.com/climate/a...ffect-of-venus

Even if we burned all the fossil fuels available ....we don't even come close to a runaway temp.

Won't be very happy biome tho.
macdoc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st March 2019, 05:41 AM   #34
Delvo
الشيطان الأبيض
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 8,018
All of the CO₂ we could put in the air by burning fossil fuels now was there before. The result at the time was a world of a lot more swamps & jungles and no sign of ice caps or tundras... not a place where low-melting-point metals vaporize & precipitate out of the air & accumulate into shiny caps on the mountaintops like H₂O does on earth, the sky is never visible through the constant clouds, and alien science probes like ours are crushed, melted, & chemically dissolved within a couple of hours.
Delvo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st March 2019, 02:25 PM   #35
Hercules56
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,902
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post

Here's the graph of observed global surface temperature. There has been a rise of about 0.6 degrees Celsius (1 degree Fahrenheit) since 1989:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instru...re_Anomaly.svg
I hate this graph and ones like it. And I'll tell you why.

Did Earth's temperatures begin in 1880?

The graph doesn't suggest they did, but by limiting info to just the last 140 years, it leaves the audience ignorant as to what trends over the last 300, 500, 1,000, 10,000 years have been. Information these days is a weapon, and this graph and ones like it, are clearly weaponized.

Wanna see some more clearly weaponized graphs?

Hercules56 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st March 2019, 03:06 PM   #36
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,815
Originally Posted by Hercules56 View Post
I hate this graph and ones like it. And I'll tell you why.

Did Earth's temperatures begin in 1880?

The graph doesn't suggest they did, but by limiting info to just the last 140 years, it leaves the audience ignorant as to what trends over the last 300, 500, 1,000, 10,000 years have been. Information these days is a weapon, and this graph and ones like it, are clearly weaponized.

Wanna see some more clearly weaponized graphs?

https://media.treehugger.com/assets/...crop-scale.png
How can you call that weaponized when it goes all the way back to when the readings started?

Sure CO2 existed prior to that but this is specifically results from this particular observatory.
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st March 2019, 07:43 PM   #37
macdoc
Philosopher
 
macdoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Planet earth on slow boil
Posts: 7,964
Quote:
Did Earth's temperatures begin in 1880?

The graph doesn't suggest they did, but by limiting info to just the last 140 years, it leaves the audience ignorant as to what trends over the last 300, 500, 1,000, 10,000 years have been. Information these days is a weapon, and this graph and ones like it, are clearly weaponized.
I see the OPs not very well educated on climate science despite the reading suggestions.

Are you conflating global temperatures with CO2 levels??

1880 is considered the beginning of the industrial age so that is a benchmark spot where human influence begins to overwhelm natural variation.



https://reneweconomy.com.au/paris-1-...entists-81532/

In the recent years human influence on climate can be seen earlier with land clearing which can also influence CO2 levels.

Not sure what you mean be "weaponized" but the climate change wars are over in terms of "yes it's getting warmer, yes we're responsible" as the major contributors to that public acknowledge a reality that they knew about 40 years ago.

Quote:
Exxon Knew about Climate Change Almost 40 Years Ago - Scientific ...
https://www.scientificamerican.com/....nge-almost-40-...
Oct 26, 2015 - Exxon Knew about Climate Change almost 40 years ago ... the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels," ...
there are several challenges ahead.

Litigation of the fossil fuel companies to pay for damages....in progress but difficult.

Mitigation...reducing the pace of CO2 emmissions to keep the damage down.....Paris agreement ...great idea...not getting there yet.

Move to a zero carbon industrial society...coming along but hardly fast enough.

The battle has been moved to what do about it....and that is mostly political. The consequences of failure quite dire in the long term and even now coming home to roost in terms of very expensive extreme weather events.

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmin...tornadoes.html

https://www.c2es.org/content/extreme...limate-change/

The global insurance companies understand the risks only too well

Quote:
Record high temperatures and more extreme weather
Climate change and its consequences
Wildfires in Sweden, record highs of over 30°C in the northern Arctic Circle, heat and drought in central Europe, Asia and parts of North America. By the end of August, 2018 was one of the four warmest years of all time and by the end of the year is expected to be among the six warmest since records began.
27.09.2018
Dr. Eberhard Faust, Ernst Rauch
https://www.munichre.com/topics-onli...e-weather.html
macdoc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st March 2019, 10:09 PM   #38
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 11,001
Originally Posted by Hercules56 View Post
I hate this graph and ones like it. And I'll tell you why.

Did Earth's temperatures begin in 1880?
The graph is clearly titled "Instrumental Temperature Record". It starts as early as it can start, i.e. after thermometers had been invented and become ubiquitous enough for estimates of global surface temperature to be obtained based on their readings. As that interval includes the period under discussion, i.e. the last 30 years, it was the appropriate graph to post.

For periods prior to the invention of the thermometer average surface temperature has to be estimated using various proxies, e.g. ice cores and tree rings. Graphs showing the global temperature record obtained using these proxies are freely available and can be examined by anyone who bothers to look them up:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glob...erature_record
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2019, 12:48 AM   #39
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 11,001
This documentary may help to fill the obviously huge gaps in the knowledge of the OP and others like him:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-47666007

Quote:
Sir David Attenborough is to present an "urgent" new documentary about climate change for BBC One.

The one-off film will focus on the potential threats to our planet and the possible solutions.

The broadcaster says "conditions have changed far faster" than he ever imagined when he first started talking about the environment 20 years ago.

The documentary will show footage showing the impact global warming has already had.
It will also feature interviews with climatologists and meteorologists to explore the science behind recent extreme weather conditions, including the California wildfires in November 2018.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2019, 08:07 PM   #40
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,872
Originally Posted by Hercules56 View Post
I hate this graph and ones like it. And I'll tell you why.

Did Earth's temperatures begin in 1880?
That is a graph of the National Climatic Data Center instrumental temperature record which starts in 1880. The records before this are not generally used: Why does GISS show no data from before 1880?
Quote:
The analysis is limited to the period since 1880 because of poor spatial coverage of stations and decreasing data quality prior to that time. Meteorological station data provide a useful indication of temperature change in the Northern Hemisphere extratropics for a few decades prior to 1880, and there are a small number of station records that extend back to previous centuries. However, we believe that analyses for these earlier years need to be carried out on a station by station basis with an attempt to discern the method and reliability of measurements at each station, a task beyond the scope of our analysis. Global studies of still earlier times depend upon incorporation of proxy measures of temperature change.

The Berkeley Earth project uses data back to 1750: Data Overview

We have to use proxy measurements to go back further than the first instruments used to measure temperatures. See Global temperature record
Reality Check is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:34 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.