Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?

[swake]

Gavin Schmidt, I believe he is the co-founder of the RealClimate website as well as Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. I don't think he falls in the denier category but I may be wrong.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2017/01/18/hottest-year-on-record/96713338/

Again, what cannon correctly claimed was that it was the hottest on record. What I said was that climate pre-dates the "record" by quite a bit and needs to be taken in context.


I also know the article is a year old now, but it really doesn't matter all that much in this discussion.

Where does that article say anything like Gavin Schmidt claimed we are in an "extremely cool, and stable period"

[heironymouspasparagus]

I know you hate citation, but this one you need to provide your "source" on.

Vostok core data shows higher temps than today from time to time...that would be my citation.

[erfalf]

Vostok core data shows higher temps than today from time to time...that would be my citation.

Yes this. It wasn't from that article. But I have read it numerous times other places.

[erfalf]

My point was addressing the fact that the point you made was inadequate and way too simplistic.  The exact type of point making that Fake Fox News wants everyone to make, so they can spew their garbage and bobble-head listeners everywhere will just bobble along and not look anywhere past the original sound bite.  I am glad to see you went that next step!!!  As for being stupid, no, I don't think you are stupid and in fact I think I have commented on that in the past.  I do think you limit yourself to too 'narrow' a view of the world as most visibly evidenced by your ongoing support of Trump and the horrendous things he is doing to our long term well being as a nation.

125,000 years.  250,000 years.  325,000 years.  And so forth we have temperature spikes.


This is kind of a simplistic data chart - but shows temp in degrees F, and CO2 relative to today.  There have been warmer times, but in other better graphs, it is absolutely obvious that temperature goes up first, followed by CO2.  Today is the exact opposite.  This chart shows CO2 still below 400 ppm - it is about 405 ppm today.  And CO2 started up first, bringing temperature with it.  THAT is the huge difference and what should be at the very least a major question of concern....and probably should make everyone on the planet go running into the distance like their hair was on fire, screaming all the way...

http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/06/29/human_cause-3/


The planet also has some interesting "ice age" cycles (see chart link below).  This one shows the 100,000 year cycles of the last half million, with 41k cycles and then several million years of relative calm.  Our climate is becoming more oscillatory (unstable) and radical.  We have started to add to this and I don't think anyone can yet say how it will finally all fall out, except there will be change.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age#/media/File:Five_Myr_Climate_Change.svg


This one shows how temps have changed just for the last half million, relative to Vostok, et al.  If we were to just look at that, and feel that there is a pattern, it would tell us we are on the brink of the next ice age.  Then we gotta figure out how to model the massive increase in CO2 - previous high of near 300 with much different temperature features.   All of these are why we should be concerned.   I still say, it either won't matter one way or the other, or it is too late to alleviate anything.   Hold on boys and girls - your grandkids are gonna have the ride of their lives!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age#/media/File:Ice_Age_Temperature.png

Yet you never claim things like cannon said are simplistic views, which they are just as simplistic. Which also doesn't mean they aren't important. Just that that tiny data point is no less or more important than what I was bringing up. Cycles, as you mention, are huge. You are basically validating my point and calling it stupid at the same time.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Yet you never claim things like cannon said are simplistic views, which they are just as simplistic. Which also doesn't mean they aren't important. Just that that tiny data point is no less or more important than what I was bringing up. Cycles, as you mention, are huge. You are basically validating my point and calling it stupid at the same time.

You mean his satirical comment about guido trolling...

The tiny data point is what you appeared to be trying to reinforce/support with your comment about how short a time we have measured temperature.  If I misinterpreted that, then I was wrong.  That tiny data part is the part I take great exception to, though - we can measure for hundreds of thousands and even millions of years.  That is not a tiny data point in our context.  Age of the planet, yeah, but we don't live with too many dinosaurs - only a relative few have survived the really warm times of 65+ million years ago...at least we think they were warmer due to flora remains.  Haven't seen any more direct measurements but may have missed that if they have.  Not sure what info they could get out of amber - maybe some climate info.

Climate is very complicated.  Weather in the form of CO2 and temperature records, not so much.  We have a pretty good idea what was going on climate wise from the weather records.

One thing is for sure though, there have been great human extinctions in the past - one notable one around the 100,000+ year mark, which would line up uncomfortably well with one of those high temperature/CO2 marks on a Vostok graph.  I have heard estimates that there remained only from 10,000 to 100,000 modern humans after one of those events.  I am presuming (guessing?) that there is some genetic/DNA means to find those constrictions in the gene pool and about when they may have occurred....??

For Trump and Inhofe and their ilk to call real science a hoax or a Chinese plot is just pure stupid.

[cannon_fodder]

I've explained it, in detailed, with citations, several times in this thread. If you are truly curious, you can find it or seek out other sources of knowledge.  Someone isn't paying attention, otherwise, you would know that our climate data goes back way past human record keeping (humans have only been good at keeping climate records for ~156 years). 

For fun, I will simplify it as much as possible (again):

Science can very accurately trace atmospheric CO2 going back ~800,000 years.
Science can very accurately measure temperatures continuously going back ~2,000,000 years (and back 3 million, but not continuously).

There is strong correlation between increased CO2 levels and temperature in the records.
There is separate strong scientific evidence for CO2 as a greenhouse gas.
Combining these data points, scientists conclude that CO2 causes warming.

CO2 and temperature both fluctuated back and forth slowly over millennium (average cycle ~8500 years).
Humans have pumped ever increasing amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere in measurable amounts.
The current rapid rise in CO2 levels is a historic anomaly and corresponds with the industrial revolution (rise equal to a cycle in 50 years).
The last time CO2 levels were this high, humans did not exist.


https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

In a typical cycle, the average temperature rose 4-7 degrees C over thousands of years.
In the recent past, we have experienced warming at a rate of 1 degree per 100 years.
Studies have shown an unambiguous one way causality between the recent man-made rise in CO2 and temperature.
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691


That's all done.  It's a scientific conclusion, like gravity.  We should always seek more data and refine the theory, but the basic conclusion has been reached and will not be overturned without extraordinary data.  The questions being asked now are:

1. How much CO2 can the oceans absorb?
2. Will the oceans moderate the increase in air temperature?
3. What regional changes will it bring about?
4. For how long will change continue? and
5. What can be done to minimize the impact?

As far as I can tell, there isn't a consensus on these things.  If the global average changes 2 C uniformly, we have a solid idea of what that means (bye Miami).  But if the gulf stream is disrupted, the jet stream moves, or other massive ocean/air currents shift - serious problems emerge.  Ever notice that Tulsa and Baghdad have similar latitudes or that London is north of Winnipeg?  Turns out currents really matter.

For my own ignorance, I've never understood what caused CO2 levels to drop previously.  I assume a shift in floral/fauna over millennia (which would be bad for us), but I've never really looked into it.  So don't think I'm operating with complete (let alone perfect) knowledge. 

But as long as we continue to have the same debate over and over and over and over on matters already decided, its hard to press forward with the other questions.  And yes, science should ALWAYS be an open question.  The problem is when the questions have been answered and people still refuse to accept the data.  If no new evidence is presented, then at a certain point, you have to write them off as refusing to accept reality and move on. 

I'm looking at you, flat earthers. 

[Red Arrow]

The problem is when the questions have been answered and people still refuse to accept the data.  If no new evidence is presented, then at a certain point, you have to write them off as refusing to accept reality and move on. 

When everyone accepts "the data", there will be no search for new evidence.  The earth would still be flat.  The earth would still be at the center of the universe....

[Hoss]

When everyone accepts "the data", there will be no search for new evidence.  The earth would still be flat.  The earth would still be at the center of the universe....

For some people the earth still IS flat....

https://www.tfes.org/

[Red Arrow]

For some people the earth still IS flat....

Flat and round, like a coin.

[guido911]

[TheArtist]

Meanwhile on the other 95% of the earths surface... 

[rebound]

When everyone accepts "the data", there will be no search for new evidence.  The earth would still be flat.  The earth would still be at the center of the universe....

Both of those concepts,  a flat earth and it being at the center, were never science-based.  Flat earth basically pre-dates all science, and the earth being at the center was religious dogma.   
The great thing about actual science, particularly when confronting long-held beliefs, is that we DO get to argue about it.   Evolution is a classic example.  When Darwin proposed it, it was - literally - blasphemy.   And we now know that while he had some of the mechanics wrong, the idea has been proven out and the specifics continue to be reviewed.   Discussing climate change is similar, in that the ramifications impact directly on perceived notions and could/would require people to change basic routines and practices (and we generally don't like doing that).     

[TheArtist]

Even with this cold snap it looks like January and February will be warmer than average for Tulsa.

[cannon_fodder]

When everyone accepts "the data", there will be no search for new evidence.  The earth would still be flat.  The earth would still be at the center of the universe....

Actually no, that's not how it works.  Generally accept scientific theories are improved upon or thrown out all the time. That's how science moves forward. 

Newtonian gravity was accepted for centuries, and was then thrown out by relativity.  Geocentric cosmology was an accepted scientific fact for 1500 years with models that could predict where the planets would be (scientific observation, data, and the ability to predict), it fell apart as we gained more knowledge and its predictive ability started to fail and was replaced, replaced again, and finally reached where we currently are (the religious push back didn't start until the model started to fail, and our current model has known flaws related to general relativity so it will eventually be replaced again). Stable earth was replaced with plate tectonics. Static universe replaced with expanding and then accelerating universe. Young earth (20-40 million years, not the biblical young earth theory) was scientific fact until the mid 1800s.  The nature of light. Dalton's atomic theory. And on and on and on.

The Nobel Prize in physics this year was awarded to a group who proved that gravity moves in waves, as opposed to a previously explanation of a mechanical force.  You are not chastised for proving science wrong, you gain international scientific acclaim at the highest levels. But there is a difference between proving science wrong and shouting "no no no no no" in the face of overwhelming data.

If someone has data that disproves a scientific theory they will be met with skepticism and scrutiny, but if the data checks out they will handsomely rewarded. It's easier to tear down a theory than come up with a new one.  So attack all the scientific facts you want, they could all be wrong.  But unless you are preeminent expert in the field, the odds are that the consensus is more accurate than you.

Unless, of course, there is a vast global conspiracy...


(I need to start just cutting and pasting into this thread)

[guido911]

Meanwhile on the other 95% of the earths surface... 

Trump is making AMERICA great again. The rest of the world is going to have to make itself great.