Jump to content


The Global Warming Pause


Recommended Posts

That report also states:

 

"Delayed emission reductions significantly constrain the opportunities to

achieve lower stabilisation levels and increase the risk of more severe climate change impacts."

"Mitigation efforts over the next two to three decades will have a large impact on

opportunities to achieve lower stabilisation levels."

"There is high agreement and much evidence that all stabilisation levels assessed can be

achieved by deployment of a portfolio of technologies that are either currently available or

expected to be commercialized in coming decades, assuming appropriate and effective

incentives are in place for their development, acquisition, deployment and diffusion and

addressing related barriers.”

And from the exact same paragraph you quoted:

 

For example, stability of thermohaline circulation or the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) or the Greenland ice sheet, the

mobilization of biospheric CO2 stocks, changes in the Asian summer monsoons, loss of mountain glaciers, coral reefs

and ENSO all appear to be of global or regional significance, respectively, and thus these are some of the natural

bounds, which if exceeded, would lead to major potentially irreversible impacts. It is very likely that the irreversibility

and scale of such changes would be considered “unacceptable” by virtually all policy-makers and would thus qualify

as “dangerous” change.

All of this seems more consistent with what tschu was talking about, not the line about Earth becoming Venus that you picked out because (I assume) it also includes the word "runaway."

 

The Cliffs Notes appears to be they're advocating policy change in order to avoid unacceptable changes, noting it will come at the cost of slowed growth but is still currently feasible.

 

 

 

PrinceHomer3.gif

Link to comment

 

 

...which seems more consistent with what tschu was talking about, not the line about Earth becoming Venus that you picked out because (I assume) it also included the word "runaway."

'Runaway' has a very specific definition. It means it can't be stopped. To use 'runaway' is to state that global warming could have apocalyptic consequences, which it won't. It's used for a very specific purpose: to scare people. Scared people do things that rational people do not, which is what the shysters in the green industry want. Like I said, if you want to talk about consequences, talk about plausible consequences, don't insist the world will end if you don't get your way.

 

Ice levels in both arctic regions are increasing, not decreasing. An ongoing problem in the environmental movement: there's the science, which is generally pretty good, and there's their predictions, which haven't been. Models are only as good as their inputs, and those are very tricky to predict so far out.

 

Could you provide sources for these two claims, please?

 

 

I can debunk the "increasing" ice.

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/09/10/climate_change_sea_ice_global_cooling_and_other_nonsense.html

 

The second claim that the Arctic sea ice is now 60 percent higher over August 2012 is technically true but extremely misleading. In the summer of 2012 Arctic sea ice hit a record low. Given just how extreme it was, it’s not too surprising that it would not be as extreme this year. As you can see by the graph here, the sea ice extent (which essentially represents how much area is covered by ice) was incredibly low last year and is still lower than average this year. Rose makes this seem like the ice is on a huge rebound, but it’s more like getting a D- after getting an F on a test. Sure, it’s better, but it ain’t necessarily good.

 

Also, note the headline of the article that says, “Record Return of Arctic Ice Cap as it Grows by 60% in a Year.” That is grossly misleading, making it seem as if the sea ice is coming back. It isn’t. The sea ice grows and recedes with the seasons every year and has been on the decline since spring … and the overall trend over time is definitely downward.

 

Incidentally, sea ice extent is interesting, but it's not the best way to look at this. More important is the sea ice volume, which tells you the thickness. Ice can cover a lot of area, but if it’s thin, that’s not good; it melts more readily in the summer. Right now, the trend for sea ice volume is down. Way down.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment

It all comes down to variance. There will be periods of 1, 5, 10 or more years where if you cherry pick a start and end point, the temperature won't increase and may even go down. Same with CO2 levels, sea levels, polar ice, whatever. But when you do that, you're choosing the noise over the signal - the long-term trend has been very clear.

Link to comment

 

 

What year is attributed with the breaking point at which human caused CO2 releases broke the natural balance of the CO2 cycle and began to contribute to the increase of concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere?

 

Is this a year that has been defined by the Consensus?

 

I've seen 1990 as a year used in the Kyoto Protocol...but is there a better year to reference?

Breaking point?

 

Ya. The beginning of man-made global warming if you please.

 

When did it happen? What year?

 

1980's

 

1970's?

 

1960's?

 

---

 

The industrial revolution started back in the 18th century...

 

... so I'm assuming there is a year some time after we attribute the beginning of global warming.

 

If not a year, maybe a decade?

 

 

Could just be coincidence....

1.jpg

Link to comment

Junior,

 

Nice find.

 

I'm more than happy to look at the evidence if it's there, but I spend a lot of time reading about science and current issues surrounding it. I have yet to find a singe credible person who is anything less than worried about climate change. Sea ice and sea levels is only a part of that picture. It also has to do with drought, loss of biodiversity, the compounded snowball effect climate change will have as the problem worsens––loss of moisture in soil, release of carbon in previously frozen areas, increased storms and their locations, danger to coastal cities, etc.. So when I hear stuff like this, I react pretty skeptically.

 

The sea ice theory LukeinNE rejects sounds like a weather vs. climate fallacy. The one literally changes with the winds and seasons and is mostly unpredictable; the other is a trend line that is very predictable. The rise in ocean temperatures is not something that's up for discussion, and it's not granola munchers manufacturing the data.

 

I do think Luke has a point, though, about the economic aspect. This climate change problem didn't arise over night and it won't disappear over night even if every person in the United States drove their cars into the nearest lake. The last I heard our best solar panel had something like a 20% conversion rate, and that just won't cut the mustard, but technology doesn't invent itself overnight, either. We don't necessarily have the luxury of waiting around for the "free market" to crap one out that works, though it will play its role.

Link to comment

Junior,

 

Nice find.

 

I'm more than happy to look at the evidence if it's there, but I spend a lot of time reading about science and current issues surrounding it. I have yet to find a singe credible person who is anything less than worried about climate change. Sea ice and sea levels is only a part of that picture. It also has to do with drought, loss of biodiversity, the compounded snowball effect climate change will have as the problem worsens––loss of moisture in soil, release of carbon in previously frozen areas, increased storms and their locations, danger to coastal cities, etc.. So when I hear stuff like this, I react pretty skeptically.

 

The sea ice theory LukeinNE rejects sounds like a weather vs. climate fallacy. The one literally changes with the winds and seasons and is mostly unpredictable; the other is a trend line that is very predictable. The rise in ocean temperatures is not something that's up for discussion, and it's not granola munchers manufacturing the data.

 

I do think Luke has a point, though, about the economic aspect. This climate change problem didn't arise over night and it won't disappear over night even if every person in the United States drove their cars into the nearest lake. The last I heard our best solar panel had something like a 20% conversion rate, and that just won't cut the mustard, but technology doesn't invent itself overnight, either. We don't necessarily have the luxury of waiting around for the "free market" to crap one out that works, though it will play its role.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/07/26/lake-mead-falling-in-sign-of-drought/13079009/

 

 

Now that measuring stick is drier than ever. Federal water managers say Lake Mead is just 39% full. The water level fell in July to its lowest level since 1937, when water began backing up to form Lake Mead after the dam was completed.

 

The level of the lake fell this month to just over 1,081 feet above sea level, 139 feet below the nearly 1,220-foot capacity.

Link to comment

 

 

 

What year is attributed with the breaking point at which human caused CO2 releases broke the natural balance of the CO2 cycle and began to contribute to the increase of concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere?

 

Is this a year that has been defined by the Consensus?

 

I've seen 1990 as a year used in the Kyoto Protocol...but is there a better year to reference?

Breaking point?

 

Ya. The beginning of man-made global warming if you please.

 

When did it happen? What year?

 

1980's

 

1970's?

 

1960's?

 

---

 

The industrial revolution started back in the 18th century...

 

... so I'm assuming there is a year some time after we attribute the beginning of global warming.

 

If not a year, maybe a decade?

 

 

Could just be coincidence....

1.jpg

 

 

So you are contending that - based on the graph - man-made global warming "started" shortly after 1900?

 

Maybe 1925 is a reasonable "date" to pin down? (give or take 20 years)

 

Is that the start period that is agreed on by the Consensus?

 

Seems reasonable based on the chart.

 

Unless anyone else has a better date that the Consensus has determined as the "start", I'll assume that is the beginning date of global warming.

Link to comment

 

 

 

 

What year is attributed with the breaking point at which human caused CO2 releases broke the natural balance of the CO2 cycle and began to contribute to the increase of concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere?

 

Is this a year that has been defined by the Consensus?

 

I've seen 1990 as a year used in the Kyoto Protocol...but is there a better year to reference?

Breaking point?

 

Ya. The beginning of man-made global warming if you please.

 

When did it happen? What year?

 

1980's

 

1970's?

 

1960's?

 

---

 

The industrial revolution started back in the 18th century...

 

... so I'm assuming there is a year some time after we attribute the beginning of global warming.

 

If not a year, maybe a decade?

 

 

Could just be coincidence....

1.jpg

 

 

So you are contending that - based on the graph - man-made global warming "started" shortly after 1900?

 

Maybe 1925 is a reasonable "date" to pin down? (give or take 20 years)

 

Is that the start period that is agreed on by the Consensus?

 

Seems reasonable based on the chart.

 

Unless anyone else has a better date that the Consensus has determined as the "start", I'll assume that is the beginning date of global warming.

 

 

Something to consider here is the transience of human perspective. Our species has been on this planet for a quarter of a million years––and that's the most liberal figure. When someone says climate change won't cause an apocalypse, I'm inclined to agree. It may just kill every human/large mammal and several more species like many a catastrophe has already done. The earth abides. During our hunter-gatherer days and before the earth oscillated between ice ages and periods of warming. A lot of factors contributed (and still do) to changes in climate. When the last ice age ended, we entered a relatively stable period which is set to last for tens of thousands of years--provided we don't screw it up by altering the climate again.

 

Anthropogenic warming is going to be difficult to nail down to a date like August 15th, 1953 at 6:00 AM. The correlation between manmade C02 in the atmosphere and the increase in average temperature can basically be described as post-industrial. We can produce some greenhouse gasses and no one will be the wiser. But we're using a lot more than some. Hence the alarm when we look at the predictive models and satellite imagery like this.

 

Arctic_sea_ice_loss_animation.gif

Link to comment

 

 

 

 

What year is attributed with the breaking point at which human caused CO2 releases broke the natural balance of the CO2 cycle and began to contribute to the increase of concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere?

 

Is this a year that has been defined by the Consensus?

 

I've seen 1990 as a year used in the Kyoto Protocol...but is there a better year to reference?

Breaking point?

 

Ya. The beginning of man-made global warming if you please.

 

When did it happen? What year?

 

1980's

 

1970's?

 

1960's?

 

---

 

The industrial revolution started back in the 18th century...

 

... so I'm assuming there is a year some time after we attribute the beginning of global warming.

 

If not a year, maybe a decade?

 

 

Could just be coincidence....

1.jpg

 

 

So you are contending that - based on the graph - man-made global warming "started" shortly after 1900?

 

Maybe 1925 is a reasonable "date" to pin down? (give or take 20 years)

 

Is that the start period that is agreed on by the Consensus?

 

Seems reasonable based on the chart.

 

Unless anyone else has a better date that the Consensus has determined as the "start", I'll assume that is the beginning date of global warming.

 

 

Do you have any sort of statement or argument here? Right now you're throwing questions out hoping that someone missteps in an answer so you can go GOTCHA. Which isn't going to happen. So either make a statement or present some facts or something, or else you are contributing nothing whatsoever to this discussion.

Link to comment

Do you have any sort of statement or argument here? Right now you're throwing questions out hoping that someone missteps in an answer so you can go GOTCHA. Which isn't going to happen. So either make a statement or present some facts or something, or else you are contributing nothing whatsoever to this discussion.

 

 

You have my intentions all wrong. Also, you shouldn't fear making statements on HB P&R forum against the chances you say something that can be refuted anyway. This is a place for discussion - I hope.

 

---

 

I'm trying to figure out when our activities started to make an effect. Interestingly enough, I can't nail down a time period or level of CO2 production in which the Consensus has agreed is the beginning.

 

I did find these dates :

 

1750 - The "base" date used to represent the pre-industrial period when comparing atmospheric gas concentrations worth watching.

 

(http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html)

 

1925 - The approximate date on that global temperature chart that may represents a start of significant change - possibly?

 

1950 - This seems to be a cutoff date that represents a shift in more accurate data, either collected or estimated. Not sure if there is any significance or if it's just a data cutoff.

 

1990 - This seems to be an important ICCP date. Lots of charts seems to start here. The Kyoto Protocol uses this year's CO2 emission levels as a benchmark of sorts it appears. Not sure of the actual significance except it seems to be widely used.

 

----

 

The purpose of my efforts is to establish some facts/data points from which to do some calculations.

 

This seems to be helpful :

 

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2010.ems

 

The global human related CO2 emissions (estimates) for the dates listed above are :

 

(in million metric tons)

1750 = 3

1925 = 975

1950 = 1630

1990 = 6127

2010 = 9167

 

Also relevant, the per capita :

 

(in metric tons)

1950 = 0.64

1990 = 1.16

2010 = 1.33

 

-----------

 

To simply the numbers, you could consider the following year/rate tiers:

 

1925 = 1000 MMT/yr

1950 = 1500 MMT/yr

1980 = 5000 MMT/yr

1990 = 6000 MMT/yr

2000 = 7000 MMT/yr

2005 = 8000 MMT/yr

2010 = 9000 MMT/yr

 

--------

 

Now to go find some more numbers to play with....fell free to join in.

Link to comment

 

 

What year is attributed with the breaking point at which human caused CO2 releases broke the natural balance of the CO2 cycle and began to contribute to the increase of concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere?

 

Is this a year that has been defined by the Consensus?

 

I've seen 1990 as a year used in the Kyoto Protocol...but is there a better year to reference?

Breaking point?

 

Ya. The beginning of man-made global warming if you please.

 

When did it happen? What year?

 

1980's

 

1970's?

 

1960's?

 

---

 

The industrial revolution started back in the 18th century...

 

... so I'm assuming there is a year some time after we attribute the beginning of global warming.

 

If not a year, maybe a decade?

 

The beginning of mans contributions to global warming was probably the first intentional campfire. Our impact increased greatly over the last ~120 years.

 

It seems like a red herring. Is there a reason why you would find a definite date particularly persuasive?

Link to comment

 

 

 

What year is attributed with the breaking point at which human caused CO2 releases broke the natural balance of the CO2 cycle and began to contribute to the increase of concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere?

 

Is this a year that has been defined by the Consensus?

 

I've seen 1990 as a year used in the Kyoto Protocol...but is there a better year to reference?

Breaking point?

 

Ya. The beginning of man-made global warming if you please.

 

When did it happen? What year?

 

1980's

 

1970's?

 

1960's?

 

---

 

The industrial revolution started back in the 18th century...

 

... so I'm assuming there is a year some time after we attribute the beginning of global warming.

 

If not a year, maybe a decade?

 

The beginning of mans contributions to global warming was probably the first intentional campfire. Our impact increased greatly over the last ~120 years.

 

It seems like a red herring. Is there a reason why you would find a definite date particularly persuasive?

 

 

Yes! ...so at what point did our impact change from "negligible to moderate" and/or "moderate to significant".

 

Just throw out a guess... I'm not trying to play the "gotcha" game.

 

I understand if we pick a date it is simply a point of a gradual curve, but it helps distinguish a baseline for setting goals - nothing more.

 

--

 

To illustrate one use of a date :

 

The Kyoto Protocol seems to have picked 1990 as a benchmark date and then said the goal should be to achieve an emission rate of 80-95% of your 1990 rate by 2050.

 

So, if your country had 1000 mmt/yr co2 rate in 1990, the goal was to have 50-200 mmt/yr co2 emission rate by 2050.]

 

1990 probably was only significant because they could more readily rely on data from that date.

 

--

 

I'm trying to understand some things, if you don't want to help me understand - fine.

Link to comment

 

 

 

 

What year is attributed with the breaking point at which human caused CO2 releases broke the natural balance of the CO2 cycle and began to contribute to the increase of concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere?

 

Is this a year that has been defined by the Consensus?

 

I've seen 1990 as a year used in the Kyoto Protocol...but is there a better year to reference?

Breaking point?

 

Ya. The beginning of man-made global warming if you please.

 

When did it happen? What year?

 

1980's

 

1970's?

 

1960's?

 

---

 

The industrial revolution started back in the 18th century...

 

... so I'm assuming there is a year some time after we attribute the beginning of global warming.

 

If not a year, maybe a decade?

 

The beginning of mans contributions to global warming was probably the first intentional campfire. Our impact increased greatly over the last ~120 years.

 

It seems like a red herring. Is there a reason why you would find a definite date particularly persuasive?

 

 

Yes! ...so at what point did our impact change from "negligible to moderate" and/or "moderate to significant".

 

Just throw out a guess... I'm not trying to play the "gotcha" game.

 

I understand if we pick a date it is simply a point of a gradual curve, but it helps distinguish a baseline for setting goals - nothing more.

 

--

 

To illustrate one use of a date :

 

The Kyoto Protocol seems to have picked 1990 as a benchmark date and then said the goal should be to achieve an emission rate of 80-95% of your 1990 rate by 2050.

 

So, if your country had 1000 mmt/yr co2 rate in 1990, the goal was to have 50-200 mmt/yr co2 emission rate by 2050.]

 

1990 probably was only significant because they could more readily rely on data from that date.

 

--

 

I'm trying to understand some things, if you don't want to help me understand - fine.

 

I've no doubt that you can find a more knowledgeable source than I am if you're trying to understand some things. That IPCC report linked above would probably be as good of a starting point as any.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...