As for the catastrophic global warming, let’s not jump from the frying pan into the fire.
To my ears, this sounds like another fool ridiculing the notion of CAGW - that would be catastrophic anthropogenic global warming -
that would be a warming of our Earth (and its climate system) becoming inhospitable to human wants, expectations, needs and ability to cope with.Here are a few questions such individuals refuse to respond to:
What, you don't believe in the reality of accumulating compounding interest? What about acknowledging trends?
Why reject the evidence that Atmospheric Greenhouse gases are increasing at an unheard of rate, that we are responsible and that they will remain in the atmosphere a very long time? Science tells us it's atmospheric insulation - reality tells us temps are increasing and glaciers are melting at frightening and increasing speeds - but Republicans/libertarians want to play word games and pretend away this reality with distractions into an endless smoke and mirrors labyrinth of trivial pursuits.
What, you think the trends in glacier melting are going to reverse themselves under the current regime?
Do you actually believe rising sea levels aren't going to impacts coastal cities, infrastructure and population centers in massive catastrophically disruptive ways?
Why, don't you think the disruption of millennia's old seasonal cycles and scrambling the interconnected coordination between a vast variety of living organisms is going to wreak havoc with our agriculture bounty?
Here are some realities such individuals refuse to acknowledge:
We have a society today where most people don't have a clue how complex and interdependent our society has become.
People take the weather and moderate temperatures for granted never realizing what a knife edge society has always lived by.
Tweak those parameters just a few degrees up or down and it makes a huge, life altering difference.
This time with our fossil fuels burning we are in the driver's seat - what part of that doesn't make sense to Republicans and libertarians? Please someone explain !
How can the Republican/libertarian PR machine of supposed grown-ups justify pretending CO2 Science is a hoax...Society made incredible strides in the past couple hundred years, "escaping" ancient constraints - unfortunately we've become reckless thanks to our mass-media fed sense of entitlement that blind us while instilling an apathy that breeds ignorance, laziness and blindness.
It's a story that's old as humankind, new generations thoughtlessly squandering the hard won achievements of their elders and winding up destitute. Only this time around we've run out of new horizons for our children, future generations, to escape to and start the cycle of exploit and thoughtless destruction yet again.
The only thing you can bet on these days is that there is a terrible reckoning barreling down on us, yet look to our political and business leaders. All I see is smoke'n-mirrors from disingenuous scoundrels.
As for the catastrophic global warming, let’s not jump from the frying pan into the fire.
From Wikipedia
John Holdren is the senior advisor to President Barack Obama on science and technology issues through his roles as Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.
Holdren was previously the Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University,[8] director of the Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program at the School's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, and Director of the Woods Hole Research Center.
What are you claiming, that Catastrophic Climate Change somehow isn't?
Keep in mind that what we humans have been collectively doing for well over a century is the equivalent of running a real world replication of events that have resulted in the worst extinction events in the Earth's history. And probably doing it on a much shorter time scale.
http://www.livescience.com/41909-new-clues-permian-mass-extinction.html
http://news.berkeley.edu/2015/10/01/asteroid-impact-volcanism-were-one-two-punch-for-dinosaurs/
This along with everything else we're doing like rapidly fishing down the food chain in the oceans, massive deforestation, urbanization, etc... is rapidly pushing many ecosystems to their breaking point. It's clearly insane to think this can last or that we have any time left to play politics with it. Which is still the case in far too many countries.
As for the catastrophic global warming, let’s not jump from the frying pan into the fire.
From Wikipedia
John Holdren is the senior advisor to President Barack Obama on science and technology issues through his roles as Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.
Holdren was previously the Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University,[8] director of the Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program at the School's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, and Director of the Woods Hole Research Center.
What are you claiming, that Catastrophic Climate Change somehow isn't?
Keep in mind that what we humans have been collectively doing for well over a century is the equivalent of running a real world replication of events that have resulted in the worst extinction events in the Earth's history. And probably doing it on a much shorter time scale.
http://www.livescience.com/41909-new-clues-permian-mass-extinction.html
http://news.berkeley.edu/2015/10/01/asteroid-impact-volcanism-were-one-two-punch-for-dinosaurs/
This along with everything else we're doing like rapidly fishing down the food chain in the oceans, massive deforestation, urbanization, etc... is rapidly pushing many ecosystems to their breaking point. It's clearly insane to think this can last or that we have any time left to play politics with it. Which is still the case in far too many countries.
Please keep it simple.
John was stating that we are in the cooling cycle right now. Is that not correct?
What I am doing is adding that to the fact that in the cooling cycle there are drastic jumps in climate change in very, very short periods of time, like fifty years.
John also said that if it was not for the global warming we might be cooling right now.
In other words we could go from a warming catastrophic to a much worse cooling catastrophic really fast.
This is not my thinking. I am just laying out what people like john are telling us. Stop trying to shoot the messenger and look at all the data.
A theory of history is that man walked from Asia to North America by land in one of these quick climate changes.
In other words we could go from a warming catastrophic to a much worse cooling catastrophic really fast.
Guess you still haven't figured out the greenhouse gas thing.
Reality = +400ppm and rising faster than ever.
History = Ice ages somewhere around 200ppm.
Please keep it simple.
John was stating that we are in the cooling cycle right now. Is that not correct?
That is almost certainly incorrect when last year set another record for highest average temperature.
http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-analyses-reveal-record-shattering-global-warm-temperatures-in-2015
What I am doing is adding that to the fact that in the cooling cycle there are drastic jumps in climate change in very, very short periods of time, like fifty years.
John also said that if it was not for the global warming we might be cooling right now.
There is no cooling cycle, it's entirely a fabrication of the climate change denial movement. The last decade saw the lowest Solar minimum on record in combination with some of the strongest La Ninas and other conditions that should have resulted in some of the lowest global average temperature years on record. Instead most of the warmest years on record are in this century which is just 16 years old.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/02/14-15-hottest-years-record-2000-un-global-warming
The radiative forcings that have resulted in climate change in past have been on the order of +/- a few tenths of a watt/m^2, what we're seeing with things like massive emissions of CO2 are human generated positive forcings of up to +4w/m^2. The idea of a natural cooling cycle overriding this is pure fantasy.
In other words we could go from a warming catastrophic to a much worse cooling catastrophic really fast.
How, provide a negative forcing of the magnitude that has been well established in adding hundreds of billions of extra tons to the natural carbon cycle. As long as all that extra carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere and oceans then the world isn't going to experience a sudden drop in temperatures.
This is not my thinking. I am just laying out what people like john are telling us. Stop trying to shoot the messenger and look at all the data.
A theory of history is that man walked from Asia to North America by land in one of these quick climate changes.
I am looking at the basic physics of adding billions of tons of a molecule that is effectively tuned to re-radiate back to the Earth's surface incredible amounts of heat that would have simply passed out into space.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/4-Hiroshima-bombs-worth-of-heat-per-second.html
The slope of the global heat accumulation graph tells us how rapidly the Earth's climate is building up heat. Over the past decade, the rate is 8 x 1021 Joules per year, or 2.5 x 1014 Joules per second. The yield of the Hiroshima atomic bomb was 6.3 x 1013 Joules, hence the rate of global heat accumulation is equivalent to about 4 Hiroshima bomb detonations per second. That's nearly 2 billion atomic bomb detonations worth of heat accumulating in the Earth's climate system since 1998, when we're told global warming supposedly 'paused'. That has to be the worst pause ever.
Explain to me how you can have the heat equivalent of 2 billion Hiroshima sized atoms bombs detonating added to the global climate between 1998 and 2012 alone without a significant warming of the Earth.
The only people who aren't profoundly alarmed at what's being done are those who don't really have a clue.
No politics or any other twisting of the evidence is going to change the basic thermo and quantum dynamics of what is happening which if it continues any longer will relentlessly create an Earth that is no longer habitable for most of the life here. Something that has happened in the past and we're recreating at a much faster pace than at any time in the past.
Please keep it simple.
John was stating that we are in the cooling cycle right now. Is that not correct?
That is almost certainly incorrect when last year set another record for highest average temperature.
http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-analyses-reveal-record-shattering-global-warm-temperatures-in-2015
DougC, I will break up my responses into several posts due to the size.
It seems like citizenschallenge agrees with what john says about the cycle in post #147.
citizenschallenge provided a chart of the Milankovitch Cycles in his post.
More discussion about the cycle in posts 144,158, 154, 178 and 179.
My understanding is that the heat or earth’s temperature will lag behind the changes in the cycle by as much as a decade. That is in a debated area of trends and lags. We know they are happenings but will have to wait for the computer models to be able to completely understand them.
In other words we could go from a warming catastrophic to a much worse cooling catastrophic really fast.
Guess you still haven't figured out the greenhouse gas thing.
Reality = +400ppm and rising faster than ever.
History = Ice ages somewhere around 200ppm.
History of the ice cores show the greenhouse CO2 up to 300 times today’s levels. I don’t have time right now, but we need to check out why we differ.
The little Ice Age and the Ice pack about 15K ago. Didn't they happen really quickly?
And there is the scientist that has data on ocean coral that shows a fast, 50 year cooling. And there has been several other reports about quick cooling. The guy working with the coral has the data from six cycles ago. I am waiting on more research, because it should happen every cycle to be standard in the cycle.
DougC, I will break up my responses into several posts due to the size.
It seems like citizenschallenge agrees with what john says about the cycle in post #147.
citizenschallenge provided a chart of the Milankovitch Cycles in his post.
More discussion about the cycle in posts 144,158, 154, 178 and 179.
My understanding is that the heat or earth’s temperature will lag behind the changes in the cycle by as much as a decade. That is in a debated area of trends and lags. We know they are happenings but will have to wait for the computer models to be able to completely understand them.
The radiative forcings of the Milanchovitch cycles are tiny compared to the human generated forcings created by all the extra carbon dioxide that has been emitted by human activity over the course of more than a century. They're on the order of tenths of a watt per meter squared. The forcings from human activity are about +1.6 w/m^2 the largest part being from CO2 emissions.
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-2-5.html
Carbon dioxide is the most important persistent greenhouse gas, if there were none in the Earth's atmosphere this planet would be covered in ice all the way to the equator. It's the uptake of carbon dioxide down to about 180ppm that allows massive ice sheets to form during glaciation periods in recent geological times.
Once placed in the atmosphere billions of tons of carbon dioxide don't wait a decade or more to start redirecting heat back to the Earth's surface, the effect is immediate. The consequences may take some time to become noticeable in gross terms, but the energy is steadily being added to the global climate, most of it going into the oceans which have a thermal capacity 1,000 times that of the atmosphere. The amount of heat that has already been added to the oceans in the last century and a half by human activity is immense and will take centuries to come into a thermodynamic balance there. Which means that climate and resulting weather will be in global flux for that period. To a much warmer state for the entire global climate.
The levels of CO2 have already been elevated to levels not present for tens of millions of years on Earth, once again, carbon dioxide is the most important persistent greenhouse gas in our atmosphere. We're now approaching levels that existed about 35 million years ago when there were no major ice sheets on the planet, we're already seeing the breakdown of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets which will accelerate as we increase the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere even further. This is going to completely reorder climate at the poles and also make future cooling cycles much less likely. Instead of ice reflecting back into space about 90% of incoming sunlight, the open ocean created in the Arctic will absorb about 90% of sunlight and the land surface of Antarctica will be much less reflective.
The chances of another ice age for centuries is highly unlikely as there is no known mechanism to overcome the powerful positive radiative forcings that human activity has created.
What's much more likely is that if we push the global climate too far we'll begin to see large releases of methane clathrates. At which points all bets are off and the human species just surviving that would also be highly questionable. As well as many other species now on the planet.
We're already in the initial stages of a mass extinction event mostly caused by human activity. We're well on the way to making it the worst since about 65 Mya and possibly since the worst so far about 250 Mya.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-the-sixth-mass-extinction-can-be-stopped/
History of the ice cores show the greenhouse CO2 up to 300 times today’s levels. I don’t have time right now, but we need to check out why we differ.
The difference is clear enough when viewed through the perspective of our planet's evolution.
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/02/most-beautiful-graph-on-earth.html
thin red line, that drops dramatically and then has a couple spikes = Impact rate
doted red line = Solar luminosity
dark green line = CO2
light green line = CH4 (methane)
red line = O2
blue line = Ocean surface temperature
Two vertical bands, in the Archean = earliest sedimentary rock formation (continent building)
Dark gray vertical bands = glacial episodes
(The moon would have formed shortly after accretion ended (the white bar), early in the Hadean)
(The reign of humanity would fit within tiniest vertical sliver at the far right end of this graph)
EARTH'S CLIMATE: PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE
Citation: Hessler, A. M. (2011) Earth’s Earliest Climate. Nature Education Knowledge 3(10):24
Lead Editor: Figen Mekik
I put together a collection of information about that very question over here - It finishes with a great talk by Professor Hazen
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/01/3-evolution-carbon-biosphere-hazen.html
History of the ice cores show the greenhouse CO2 up to 300 times today’s levels. I don’t have time right now, but we need to check out why we differ.
The little Ice Age and the Ice pack about 15K ago. Didn't they happen really quickly?
I've already explained to you why that happened, it was during the Snowball Earth phase between 700 and 600 million years ago. Because the entire Earth was covered in ice there was nothing to take the carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. The oceans and land surface rock were all under thick ice. Volcanic activity over millions of years raised atmospheric CO2 to very high levels which initiated a melting of the ice. It's another indicator of just how powerful CO2 is in moderating global climate.
And there is the scientist that has data on ocean coral that shows a fast, 50 year cooling. And there has been several other reports about quick cooling. The guy working with the coral has the data from six cycles ago. I am waiting on more research, because it should happen every cycle to be standard in the cycle.
How about posting a source, talking about some guy that might have done something doesn't really tell us much. Keep in mind that there can be rapid climate change in specific regions of the planet without involving the entire globe. What's happening now is a significant global warming that includes the oceans where most of the heat is going. This isn't going to be a short term transition, what we've already done has altered the Earth's climate for the warmer for centuries. If it happens fast enough and with enough magnitude it will result in a mass extinction event.
History of the ice cores show the greenhouse CO2 up to 300 times today’s levels. I don’t have time right now, but we need to check out why we differ.
The little Ice Age and the Ice pack about 15K ago. Didn't they happen really quickly?
I've already explained to you why that happened, it was during the Snowball Earth phase between 700 and 600 million years ago. Because the entire Earth was covered in ice there was nothing to take the carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. The oceans and land surface rock were all under thick ice. Volcanic activity over millions of years raised atmospheric CO2 to very high levels which initiated a melting of the ice. It's another indicator of just how powerful CO2 is in moderating global climate.
And there is the scientist that has data on ocean coral that shows a fast, 50 year cooling. And there has been several other reports about quick cooling. The guy working with the coral has the data from six cycles ago. I am waiting on more research, because it should happen every cycle to be standard in the cycle.
How about posting a source, talking about some guy that might have done something doesn't really tell us much. Keep in mind that there can be rapid climate change in specific regions of the planet without involving the entire globe. What's happening now is a significant global warming that includes the oceans where most of the heat is going. This isn't going to be a short term transition, what we've already done has altered the Earth's climate for the warmer for centuries. If it happens fast enough and with enough magnitude it will result in a mass extinction event.
History of the ice cores show the greenhouse CO2 up to 300 times today’s levels. I don’t have time right now, but we need to check out why we differ.
The little Ice Age and the Ice pack about 15K ago. Didn't they happen really quickly?
I've already explained to you why that happened, it was during the Snowball Earth phase between 700 and 600 million years ago. Because the entire Earth was covered in ice there was nothing to take the carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. The oceans and land surface rock were all under thick ice. Volcanic activity over millions of years raised atmospheric CO2 to very high levels which initiated a melting of the ice. It's another indicator of just how powerful CO2 is in moderating global climate.
And there is the scientist that has data on ocean coral that shows a fast, 50 year cooling. And there has been several other reports about quick cooling. The guy working with the coral has the data from six cycles ago. I am waiting on more research, because it should happen every cycle to be standard in the cycle.
How about posting a source, talking about some guy that might have done something doesn't really tell us much. Keep in mind that there can be rapid climate change in specific regions of the planet without involving the entire globe. What's happening now is a significant global warming that includes the oceans where most of the heat is going. This isn't going to be a short term transition, what we've already done has altered the Earth's climate for the warmer for centuries. If it happens fast enough and with enough magnitude it will result in a mass extinction event.
The most recent dramatic new discovery is the verification that rapid and massive reorganizations in the ocean-atmosphere system—rapid climate change events—have occurred at frequent intervals throughout at least the last glacial cycle (the past ~100,000 years). The largest of these events are characterized by changes in climate that are close to the order of glacial/interglacial cycles. Perhaps most surprising is the demonstration that these rapid climate change events turn on and off in decades or less and may last centuries to millennia. http://www.nap.edu/read/5992/chapter/7
In other words we could go from a warming catastrophic to a much worse cooling catastrophic really fast.
Guess you still haven't figured out the greenhouse gas thing.
Reality = +400ppm and rising faster than ever.
History = Ice ages somewhere around 200ppm.
Is it not true that plants need CO2? And if the CO2 drops to 150ppm all the plants die. Plants like it better and grow better at 450ppm.
In other words we could go from a warming catastrophic to a much worse cooling catastrophic really fast.
Guess you still haven't figured out the greenhouse gas thing.
Reality = +400ppm and rising faster than ever.
History = Ice ages somewhere around 200ppm.
Is it not true that plants need CO2? And if the CO2 drops to 150ppm all the plants die. Plants like it better and grow better at 450ppm.
Are you trying to make a point? If so, what is it?
History of the ice cores show the greenhouse CO2 up to 300 times today’s levels. I don’t have time right now, but we need to check out why we differ.
The little Ice Age and the Ice pack about 15K ago. Didn't they happen really quickly?
Since when?
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/ice_core_co2.html
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/images/air_bubbles_historical.jpg
Ice cores going back about 800,000 years show that CO2 levels have been fluxuating between 180 and 280ppm before human activity caused them to shoot up to present levels of about 400ppm. The are no ice cores that go back millions of years to the Snowball Earth where it's thought that CO2 levels reached about 50 times the current levels due to the extreme glaciation then.
I think we differ because you're talking about something completely unrelated, there is no direct evidence for what you're stating.
The most recent dramatic new discovery is the verification that rapid and massive reorganizations in the ocean-atmosphere system—rapid climate change events—have occurred at frequent intervals throughout at least the last glacial cycle (the past ~100,000 years). The largest of these events are characterized by changes in climate that are close to the order of glacial/interglacial cycles. Perhaps most surprising is the demonstration that these rapid climate change events turn on and off in decades or less and may last centuries to millennia. http://www.nap.edu/read/5992/chapter/7
Please, show one peer-reviewed study which shows you can go from a largely ice free Northern Hemisphere to one largely covered in ice miles thick with the rapidity we are seeing with climate change now. There are periods of climate fluxuation as you go from a glaciation stage to an inter-glacial stage, but that's from the breakdown of those massive ice sheets and how they can interrupt ocean circulation.
But we're not discussing that here, we're discussing how introducing billions of tons a year into the atmosphere of a gas well recognized by experimental science as being a prime moderator of global climate is driving the climate into a new and much warmer state. With serious leading to catastrophic consequences.
Denial ain't just a river in Egypt...
History of the ice cores show the greenhouse CO2 up to 300 times today’s levels. I don’t have time right now, but we need to check out why we differ.
The little Ice Age and the Ice pack about 15K ago. Didn't they happen really quickly?
Since when?
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/ice_core_co2.html
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/images/air_bubbles_historical.jpg
Ice cores going back about 800,000 years show that CO2 levels have been fluxuating between 180 and 280ppm before human activity caused them to shoot up to present levels of about 400ppm. The are no ice cores that go back millions of years to the Snowball Earth where it's thought that CO2 levels reached about 50 times the current levels due to the extreme glaciation then.
I think we differ because you're talking about something completely unrelated, there is no direct evidence for what you're stating.
I am sure I got that wrong. So much data. It was not from the ice cores, it was from the snowball earth time, sorry.
I am sure I got that wrong. So much data. It was not from the ice cores, it was from the snowball earth time, sorry.
If you're genuinely confused on the issue then you have nothing to be sorry about, literally billions of dollars have been spent to confuse as many people as possible on the actual evidence of global warming and the resulting climate change.
The pricks that are doing this should be in prison.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/
http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/11/23/research-confirms-exxonmobil-koch-funded-climate-denial-echo-chamber-polluted-mainstream-media