Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)
Discussion
In layman terms, with a back to basics question ; is the current rate of warming significantly greater than "natural variance" inline with a warming planet coming out of a previous ice age?
We hear constant stories of "hottest since records began", but of course this is totally expected if the planet is on a warming trend from a previous ice age. Otherwise we'd be seeing "coolest since records began" - if we were heading in to a new ice age (given the time frame from when humans kept local/global weather records).
But is the current rate(*) of warming so fast that it is clear cut that it can not be natural factors and natural trends - given that the planet has been warming since the last ice age?
(*) - cherry picking the last 100 years of course - to satisfy the theory that CO2 is the factor driving any abnormalities.
We hear constant stories of "hottest since records began", but of course this is totally expected if the planet is on a warming trend from a previous ice age. Otherwise we'd be seeing "coolest since records began" - if we were heading in to a new ice age (given the time frame from when humans kept local/global weather records).
But is the current rate(*) of warming so fast that it is clear cut that it can not be natural factors and natural trends - given that the planet has been warming since the last ice age?
(*) - cherry picking the last 100 years of course - to satisfy the theory that CO2 is the factor driving any abnormalities.
V10leptoquark said:
In layman terms, with a back to basics question ; is the current rate of warming significantly greater than "natural variance" inline with a warming planet coming out of a previous ice age?
We hear constant stories of "hottest since records began", but of course this is totally expected if the planet is on a warming trend from a previous ice age. Otherwise we'd be seeing "coolest since records began" - if we were heading in to a new ice age (given the time frame from when humans kept local/global weather records).
But is the current rate(*) of warming so fast that it is clear cut that it can not be natural factors and natural trends - given that the planet has been warming since the last ice age?
(*) - cherry picking the last 100 years of course - to satisfy the theory that CO2 is the factor driving any abnormalities.
Short answer is we don't know. Whilst the current warming rate (well it's been cooling since the last El Nino but not important right now) is very similar to the 1920's-40's, the thermometer records we have are pretty sparse prior to the industrial revolution (which is to be expected - agricultural economies didn't have the technical and industrial know-how or wealth to waste on measuring things). We hear constant stories of "hottest since records began", but of course this is totally expected if the planet is on a warming trend from a previous ice age. Otherwise we'd be seeing "coolest since records began" - if we were heading in to a new ice age (given the time frame from when humans kept local/global weather records).
But is the current rate(*) of warming so fast that it is clear cut that it can not be natural factors and natural trends - given that the planet has been warming since the last ice age?
(*) - cherry picking the last 100 years of course - to satisfy the theory that CO2 is the factor driving any abnormalities.
So you have to use proxy data. Unfortunately the one thing you lose in proxy data is the resolution (proxies end up "averaging" long periods into a single data point with wide error bars) - as such determining rates of change that are measured in decades is impossible when the data points are centuries apart.
There does seem to be a prevailing problem with science though - as soon as we determine a method of measuring something suddenly there is a problem with the thing we are measuring and therefore we must do something (tm) (think Ozone, micro-plastics, CO2 (only properly measured since the 1950s)). The cynic in me thinks funding may be the issue (hey these new fangled instruments aren't free you know) .
Jinx said:
V10leptoquark said:
In layman terms, with a back to basics question ; is the current rate of warming significantly greater than "natural variance" inline with a warming planet coming out of a previous ice age?
We hear constant stories of "hottest since records began", but of course this is totally expected if the planet is on a warming trend from a previous ice age. Otherwise we'd be seeing "coolest since records began" - if we were heading in to a new ice age (given the time frame from when humans kept local/global weather records).
But is the current rate(*) of warming so fast that it is clear cut that it can not be natural factors and natural trends - given that the planet has been warming since the last ice age?
(*) - cherry picking the last 100 years of course - to satisfy the theory that CO2 is the factor driving any abnormalities.
Short answer is we don't know. Whilst the current warming rate (well it's been cooling since the last El Nino but not important right now) is very similar to the 1920's-40's, the thermometer records we have are pretty sparse prior to the industrial revolution (which is to be expected - agricultural economies didn't have the technical and industrial know-how or wealth to waste on measuring things). We hear constant stories of "hottest since records began", but of course this is totally expected if the planet is on a warming trend from a previous ice age. Otherwise we'd be seeing "coolest since records began" - if we were heading in to a new ice age (given the time frame from when humans kept local/global weather records).
But is the current rate(*) of warming so fast that it is clear cut that it can not be natural factors and natural trends - given that the planet has been warming since the last ice age?
(*) - cherry picking the last 100 years of course - to satisfy the theory that CO2 is the factor driving any abnormalities.
So you have to use proxy data. Unfortunately the one thing you lose in proxy data is the resolution (proxies end up "averaging" long periods into a single data point with wide error bars) - as such determining rates of change that are measured in decades is impossible when the data points are centuries apart.
There does seem to be a prevailing problem with science though - as soon as we determine a method of measuring something suddenly there is a problem with the thing we are measuring and therefore we must do something (tm) (think Ozone, micro-plastics, CO2 (only properly measured since the 1950s)). The cynic in me thinks funding may be the issue (hey these new fangled instruments aren't free you know) .
Gandahar said:
This is an interesting graph
The Antarctic was always increasing in sea ice extent over the last few years compared to the Arctic which has a general drop over the last few years. Both are different. the Arctic is bound by land over much of it's freeze and melt season, the Antarctic is not, and has a global ocean going around it, so very different for how sea ice expands and contracts over a season.
The interesting thing is that the Antarctic expanded rapidly in sea ice extent in the early 2010's and now has reallysunk back recently. Polar scientists initially thought that the SAO caused this, but turns out it did not. The SAO changed but the Antarctic loss still continues. The big problem here is not much past data to go on due to being so remote.
However, if the polar regions are a "bell weather" then this is something to be interested in on how our planet is currently. Will be good to watch how it progresses.
Anything to do with the active volcanoes under some of the ice sheets? Possibly...The Antarctic was always increasing in sea ice extent over the last few years compared to the Arctic which has a general drop over the last few years. Both are different. the Arctic is bound by land over much of it's freeze and melt season, the Antarctic is not, and has a global ocean going around it, so very different for how sea ice expands and contracts over a season.
The interesting thing is that the Antarctic expanded rapidly in sea ice extent in the early 2010's and now has reallysunk back recently. Polar scientists initially thought that the SAO caused this, but turns out it did not. The SAO changed but the Antarctic loss still continues. The big problem here is not much past data to go on due to being so remote.
However, if the polar regions are a "bell weather" then this is something to be interested in on how our planet is currently. Will be good to watch how it progresses.
https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/volcano-...
V10leptoquark said:
In layman terms, with a back to basics question ; is the current rate of warming significantly greater than "natural variance" inline with a warming planet coming out of a previous ice age?
We hear constant stories of "hottest since records began", but of course this is totally expected if the planet is on a warming trend from a previous ice age. Otherwise we'd be seeing "coolest since records began" - if we were heading in to a new ice age (given the time frame from when humans kept local/global weather records).
But is the current rate(*) of warming so fast that it is clear cut that it can not be natural factors and natural trends - given that the planet has been warming since the last ice age?
(*) - cherry picking the last 100 years of course - to satisfy the theory that CO2 is the factor driving any abnormalities.
The planet hasn't been on a warming trend since the last ice age so your given is incorrect. The warming that occured at glacial termination peaked thousands of years ago (google 'holocene climate optimum') and since then temps have been generally downward.We hear constant stories of "hottest since records began", but of course this is totally expected if the planet is on a warming trend from a previous ice age. Otherwise we'd be seeing "coolest since records began" - if we were heading in to a new ice age (given the time frame from when humans kept local/global weather records).
But is the current rate(*) of warming so fast that it is clear cut that it can not be natural factors and natural trends - given that the planet has been warming since the last ice age?
(*) - cherry picking the last 100 years of course - to satisfy the theory that CO2 is the factor driving any abnormalities.
kerplunk said:
The planet hasn't been on a warming trend since the last ice age so your given is incorrect. The warming that occured at glacial termination peaked thousands of years ago (google 'holocene climate optimum') and since then temps have been generally downward.
Well, last time I looked out of my window in the north of England I didn't see a gigantic ice sheet covering the view 
If climate change is on a downward temp trend shouldn't we be acting quickly to raise temps back to where they were? [on the premise that a changing climate is a bad thing]
Isn't this the root problem with political climate change? , which nation (or activist groups) decides what the global average temp of the atmosphere, oceans and land masses should be? Surely one temperature would suit a certain nation better than another.
Is it not a smoke screen for the promotion of left wing agenda big global style governments?
Jesting a little on this reply of course!
V10leptoquark said:
kerplunk said:
The planet hasn't been on a warming trend since the last ice age so your given is incorrect. The warming that occured at glacial termination peaked thousands of years ago (google 'holocene climate optimum') and since then temps have been generally downward.
Well, last time I looked out of my window in the north of England I didn't see a gigantic ice sheet covering the view If climate change is on a downward temp trend shouldn't we be acting quickly to raise temps back to where they were? [on the premise that a changing climate is a bad thing]
Isn't this the root problem with political climate change? , which nation (or activist groups) decides what the global average temp of the atmosphere, oceans and land masses should be? Surely one temperature would suit a certain nation better than another.
Is it not a smoke screen for the promotion of left wing agenda big global style governments?
Jesting a little on this reply of course!
kerplunk said:
It's about magnitude and pace of the change and all the uncertainties in the outcomes = risk. Human civilisation has flourished during a period of relative climate stability - this may not be a coincidence.
Human civilisation has flourished during a period of not being in an Ice Age. Anything that reduces the risk of not being in a Ice Age should surely be encouraged?kerplunk said:
V10leptoquark said:
In layman terms, with a back to basics question ; is the current rate of warming significantly greater than "natural variance" inline with a warming planet coming out of a previous ice age?
We hear constant stories of "hottest since records began", but of course this is totally expected if the planet is on a warming trend from a previous ice age. Otherwise we'd be seeing "coolest since records began" - if we were heading in to a new ice age (given the time frame from when humans kept local/global weather records).
But is the current rate(*) of warming so fast that it is clear cut that it can not be natural factors and natural trends - given that the planet has been warming since the last ice age?
(*) - cherry picking the last 100 years of course - to satisfy the theory that CO2 is the factor driving any abnormalities.
The planet hasn't been on a warming trend since the last ice age so your given is incorrect. The warming that occured at glacial termination peaked thousands of years ago (google 'holocene climate optimum') and since then temps have been generally downward.We hear constant stories of "hottest since records began", but of course this is totally expected if the planet is on a warming trend from a previous ice age. Otherwise we'd be seeing "coolest since records began" - if we were heading in to a new ice age (given the time frame from when humans kept local/global weather records).
But is the current rate(*) of warming so fast that it is clear cut that it can not be natural factors and natural trends - given that the planet has been warming since the last ice age?
(*) - cherry picking the last 100 years of course - to satisfy the theory that CO2 is the factor driving any abnormalities.
TX.
PS to note that IANAS.
Jinx said:
kerplunk said:
It's about magnitude and pace of the change and all the uncertainties in the outcomes = risk. Human civilisation has flourished during a period of relative climate stability - this may not be a coincidence.
Human civilisation has flourished during a period of not being in an Ice Age. Anything that reduces the risk of not being in a Ice Age should surely be encouraged?kerplunk said:
We've probably avoided an ice age already and that threat won't come around again for millenia. Best leave the carbon reserves in the ground then until it's needed if that's your concern (but of course you're not sincere).
How KP? CO2 levels were at a high just before the last Ice Age so I'm not sure the science supports your supposition. We need the carbon now as we do not have any other reliable form of energy production that is also transportable across long distances and easy to store. In future with fusion power or thorium salt reactors we may be in a better position but to cause death and poverty (which anti CO2 plans will do) on the off-chance the inaccurate models bare some relation to reality is foolish and without merit.Stick with carbon for now until it is naturally displaced by something better - especially as the price of not using CO2 producing fuels is so high (environmentally, personally and for society at large) .
Jinx said:
kerplunk said:
We've probably avoided an ice age already and that threat won't come around again for millenia. Best leave the carbon reserves in the ground then until it's needed if that's your concern (but of course you're not sincere).
How KP? CO2 levels were at a high just before the last Ice Age so I'm not sure the science supports your supposition. Jinx said:
We need the carbon now as we do not have any other reliable form of energy production that is also transportable across long distances and easy to store. In future with fusion power or thorium salt reactors we may be in a better position but to cause death and poverty (which anti CO2 plans will do) on the off-chance the inaccurate models bare some relation to reality is foolish and without merit.
Stick with carbon for now until it is naturally displaced by something better - especially as the price of not using CO2 producing fuels is so high (environmentally, personally and for society at large) .
You wave away any risk from climate change so for you the answers are easy. Stick with carbon for now until it is naturally displaced by something better - especially as the price of not using CO2 producing fuels is so high (environmentally, personally and for society at large) .
jet_noise said:
Halb said:
Terminator X said:
Looks up and down to me over last 10k years albeit peak warm is getting lower so trend I guess is downwards. Potentially just on the crest of a new peak?
TX.
PS to note that IANAS.
Is that from evidence? TX.
PS to note that IANAS.
Edited by kerplunk on Saturday 22 June 19:24
kerplunk said:
Yes, greenland, and the last datapoint is in the 19th century I think so don't take the 'modern warm period' label too seriously.
how can you use one data point, greenland as indication of global warming. Global warming doesn’t mean temperatures rose everywhere at every time by one degree. Edited by kerplunk on Saturday 22 June 19:24
Thesprucegoose said:
kerplunk said:
Yes, greenland, and the last datapoint is in the 19th century I think so don't take the 'modern warm period' label too seriously.
how can you use one data point, greenland as indication of global warming. Global warming doesn’t mean temperatures rose everywhere at every time by one degree. Edited by kerplunk on Saturday 22 June 19:24
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff