Google Earth: how much has global warming raised temperatures near you?

[boomerangutang]

Considering we haven't had a global warming trend in the last 17 years, Can you explain what exactly is meant by climate change? Because apparently it does not need to include warming.

Yes, it appears the warming trend has only inched up in the past 17 years, according to that one set of data, so conveniently bandied around by deniers. However, if the trends are expanded to, let's say, 25 or 50 years, then the chart clearly shows warming leading up to the 17 year period that deniers continue to harp about.

I'm impressed with charts which show such things as 'record high' temps shown in many areas of the globe, both before and during that 17 year window. The record highs, far outweigh the few record lows. Even more indicative, to me, are measurements and footage of glaciers, nearly all of which worldwide, have been dramatically receding in length and in mass. If global warming is a hoax, why have those glaciers, on several continents, not been bulking up seasonally, as they would normally do? They're calving and receding, and not recovering in subsequent winters - year after year.

[canuckamuck]

Considering we haven't had a global warming trend in the last 17 years, Can you explain what exactly is meant by climate change? Because apparently it does not need to include warming.

Yes, it appears the warming trend has only inched up in the past 17 years, according to that one set of data, so conveniently bandied around by deniers. However, if the trends are expanded to, let's say, 25 or 50 years, then the chart clearly shows warming leading up to the 17 year period that deniers continue to harp about.

I'm impressed with charts which show such things as 'record high' temps shown in many areas of the globe, both before and during that 17 year window. The record highs, far outweigh the few record lows. Even more indicative, to me, are measurements and footage of glaciers, nearly all of which worldwide, have been dramatically receding in length and in mass. If global warming is a hoax, why have those glaciers, on several continents, not been bulking up seasonally, as they would normally do? They're calving and receding, and not recovering in subsequent winters - year after year.

These record highs are normal because it is warmer on average now then when warming started, well before the industrial age. But the global temperature has stopped rising at this point in history, when there is more CO2 in the atmosphere than ever in modern times. That seems incredible since the experts all predict the opposite, with a great many peer reviewed articles and papers. The science is settled don't you know?

At one time glaciers covered most of the planet, and long before the industrial revolution they receded dramatically; at a rate that makes the shrinking glaciers of today seem, well, glacial.

Nothing we can observe is capitulating to the IPCC, But I have it on good authority, that very soon thermometers and sea level gauges will be severely punished for defying settled science.

Edited April 29, 2014 by canuckamuck

[attrayant]

Considering we haven't had a global warming trend in the last 17 years, Can you explain what exactly is meant by climate change? Because apparently it does not need to include warming.

How many times do we have to answer this same question in one thread?

As for your question "what is meant by climate change", look no further than a dictionary:

cli·mate change

noun: climate change; plural noun: climate changes

1. a change in global or regional climate patterns, in particular a change apparent from the mid to late 20th century onwards and attributed largely to the increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide produced by the use of fossil fuels.

If you don't like dictionary definitions, here's the EPA's definition:

Climate change refers to any significant change in the measures of climate lasting for an extended period of time. In other words, climate change includes major changes in temperature, precipitation, or wind patterns, among other effects, that occur over several decades or longer.

Note the bold sections - "climate change" is specifically about the long-term. It's not about what's happened over the past year, three years, ten years or seventeen years. If you just want to talk about what's happening with temperatures over a few years, a better term might be "weather".

As for the "seventeen year cooling trend" canard, yes you can find a cooling trend if you look hard enough and carefully choose your measurement start and stop points. But doing that is not good analysis - it's called data cherry-picking. In the image below, your 17 year "cooling period" is the two most recent blue lines:

But look at that - the earth has had FIVE distinct stable or "cooling trends" since 1970! But if you step back and look at the long-term trend, it's easy to see why people are concerned. I dare you to look at the long term trend and tell me that you don't see any warming.

Weather systems are chaotic, and this is why short term predictions are difficult to make. We cannot predict with any significant level of certainty what the temperature will be next week, but we can predict with a very high level of certainty what the temperature will be like eight months from now (hint: it's going to get cooler, but that doesn't mean the planet is cooling!). Long term trend data tells us that temperatures go down towards the end of the year. But there are no short-term trends that can tell us what happens to temperatures from one week to the next.

You fall into the same trap when you try to use seventeen years of data to generate a long-term global climate forecast: you're trying to predict long-term results using noisy, short-term data.

[attrayant]

But the global temperature has stopped rising at this point in history, when there is more CO2 in the atmosphere than ever in modern times.

CO2 is not the sole factor influencing climate change. Factor in solar forcing, ocean currents and heat sinking of the oceans and get back to us. And as far as the "global temperature has stopped rising", 2005 was hotter than 1998. Globally, the hottest 12-month period ever recorded was from June 2009 to May 2010.

[canuckamuck]

Considering we haven't had a global warming trend in the last 17 years, Can you explain what exactly is meant by climate change? Because apparently it does not need to include warming.

How many times do we have to answer this same question in one thread?

As for your question "what is meant by climate change", look no further than a dictionary:

cli·mate change

noun: climate change; plural noun: climate changes

1. a change in global or regional climate patterns, in particular a change apparent from the mid to late 20th century onwards and attributed largely to the increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide produced by the use of fossil fuels.

If you don't like dictionary definitions, here's the EPA's definition:

Climate change refers to any significant change in the measures of climate lasting for an extended period of time. In other words, climate change includes major changes in temperature, precipitation, or wind patterns, among other effects, that occur over several decades or longer.

Note the bold sections - "climate change" is specifically about the long-term. It's not about what's happened over the past year, three years, ten years or seventeen years. If you just want to talk about what's happening with temperatures over a few years, a better term might be "weather".

As for the "seventeen year cooling trend" canard, yes you can find a cooling trend if you look hard enough and carefully choose your measurement start and stop points. But doing that is not good analysis - it's called data cherry-picking. In the image below, your 17 year "cooling period" is the two most recent blue lines:

But look at that - the earth has had FIVE distinct stable or "cooling trends" since 1970! But if you step back and look at the long-term trend, it's easy to see why people are concerned. I dare you to look at the long term trend and tell me that you don't see any warming.

Weather systems are chaotic, and this is why short term predictions are difficult to make. We cannot predict with any significant level of certainty what the temperature will be next week, but we can predict with a very high level of certainty what the temperature will be like eight months from now (hint: it's going to get cooler, but that doesn't mean the planet is cooling!). Long term trend data tells us that temperatures go down towards the end of the year. But there are no short-term trends that can tell us what happens to temperatures from one week to the next.

You fall into the same trap when you try to use seventeen years of data to generate a long-term global climate forecast: you're trying to predict long-term results using noisy, short-term data.

The point is, the phrase climate change is bandied about like some type of apocalypse. They used to say global warming, but they switched it to climate change, I believe this is because it is a word than can be made to mean anything and cannot be denied to exist, because it means anything you want it to mean. If they really were intellectually honest they would use a term that could be defined and observed and falsified. A term like Global Warming for instance. But they are not trying to be honest or scientific, they want you to be afraid. They might as well predict 'climate not the sameness', or 'climate failure to cooperate'.

But let's look at the situation. All the IPCC reports predicted runaway warming by this time as an effect of CO2 increase. We got the increase in CO2, but we are not seeing runaway warming. What we are seeing, and thanks for showing a little chart, is the completely natural trend which began since the last ice age. So, with this in mind. What exactly is climate change? Does climate change mean the normal change of the climate that moves in cycles of thousands and hundreds of years? or does it mean something on a much shorter term?

And since you think I am cherry picking data, lets go back a little further. Just so we can all be happy with the sample. the chart included shows 5000 years of temperature. Please explain how we contributed to all the changes, and what is different about the situation today

Edited April 29, 2014 by canuckamuck

[canuckamuck]

But the global temperature has stopped rising at this point in history, when there is more CO2 in the atmosphere than ever in modern times.

CO2 is not the sole factor influencing climate change. Factor in solar forcing, ocean currents and heat sinking of the oceans and get back to us. And as far as the "global temperature has stopped rising", 2005 was hotter than 1998. Globally, the hottest 12-month period ever recorded was from June 2009 to May 2010.

This is a good example of how the warmist's argument is changing, and it is a good thing. The CO2 argument is busted, there many factors influencing climate. Many are much more logical and observable. like changes in the magnetosphere, changes in sun cycles, our wobbly orbit, and the climb out of the ice age.

Sadly, we just can't figure out how to tax any of that. So it is still necessary to tag CO2 onto all theories. Gotta pay the bills.

[boomerangutang]

You could call me 'a warmist' but I still don't mind using the term 'global warming.'

I admit the term 'climate change' can appear vague.

Also, CO2 is but one part of the jigsaw puzzle. Perhaps Mr. Gore was a bit shrill in emphasizing the CO2 increases, perhaps not. I think methane emissions will prove to be at least as important, if not more so - in the increasing warming scenario.

Remember, Gore brought the debate to the world stage. It was well over ten years ago. He's as willing to adjust to new data as any scientist. When Ozone depletion first hit the headlines, it was poo-pooed by makers of products using aerosols or refrigerants. They hoped the issue would fade away or be laughed out of existence. It didn't go away. There was action by countries worldwide, and the ozone problem has thankfully faded somewhat.

The thing about GW is, the recommended actions to lessen it, are also good for the planet, whether GW is proven real or not. Lessening fossil fuel use is good no matter what angle you look at it.

Another flag which denier's wave at every opp, is their claim that humans are too insignificant to do things which have an affect on the planet. I find this almost as lame-brained as the assertion that fossil fuel use should continue unabated. Humans have a profound effect on the planet, on many levels, even if you subtract nuclear messes.

[attrayant]

Sadly, we just can't figure out how to tax any of that.

It's statements like this that convince me you're just interested in throwing mud in the hopes that some of it will stick.

And what's with the name calling "warmist"? Why not say scientist? After all, it's the vast, vast majority of scientist you're truly arguing with - not me or anyone else on this forum.

The CO2 argument is busted, there many factors influencing climate.

You need to explain this. In what way is the CO2 argument "busted"? Are you asserting that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas? Because if you are, you've chosen a line of argument that can easily be falsified by anyone with an IR spectro-photometer and a gas cell. Most highs school science labs or community colleges have these items. The link was known 150 years ago (see: Tyndall) and the effects on climate change were demonstrated in the late 1800's (see: On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground). If you have any peer-reviewed studies countering this research, I'd like to see them.

What's important to note is that all of these factors (solar forcing, heat sinking, etc.) were more or less in equilibrium until we came along and started tipping the scales with CO2. If this positive positive feedback loop continues unchecked, we may soon be unable to do anything about it.

Yes there are many factors involved. I don't believe anyone is questioning that (except for you in post #486 where you state that "the global temperature has stopped rising [...] when there is more CO2 in the atmosphere than ever"). This statement seems to suggest that you think CO2 is the only factor - that's why I countered it. Now in your post #490 you seem to take that back and acknowledge that there any many factors in play. Seems like it's YOUR argument is the one that's changing.

Edited April 29, 2014 by attrayant

[wilcopops]

OK Guy's..all I did was answer the OP'S question ( how much has global warning raised temperatures near you? )

Northern Minnesota has had almost record lows. This is a winter we will always talk about in the future.

Like this is nothing like the winter of 2013-14...remember that one!

I am not pro or con about GW . All I know it's cold today,20 degrees below average. Al,I will buy you a beer

if you bring this global warming to my U.S. home. Soon back to my Thailand home. : ))

It is sad that there is still such lack of knowledge of even the basics of Climate Change.....people should really get up to speed on the subject before posting.

Considering we haven't had a global warming trend in the last 17 years, Can you explain what exactly is meant by climate change? Because apparently it does not need to include warming.

Your second surmise is correct........... but the statement"Considering we haven't had a global warming trend in the last 17 years," is incorrect, it stems from a misleading newspaper article I think it was as usual the Daily Mail. If you kept up to date of these things you'd have known both those things.

Edited April 29, 2014 by wilcopops

[canuckamuck]

Sadly, we just can't figure out how to tax any of that.

It's statements like this that convince me you're just interested in throwing mud in the hopes that some of it will stick.

And what's with the name calling "warmist"? Why not say scientist? After all, it's the vast, vast majority of scientist you're truly arguing with - not me or anyone else on this forum.

The CO2 argument is busted, there many factors influencing climate.

You need to explain this. In what way is the CO2 argument "busted"? Are you asserting that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas? Because if you are, you've chosen a line of argument that can easily be falsified by anyone with an IR spectro-photometer and a gas cell. Most highs school science labs or community colleges have these items. The link was known 150 years ago (see: Tyndall) and the effects on climate change were demonstrated in the late 1800's (see: On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground). If you have any peer-reviewed studies countering this research, I'd like to see them.

What's important to note is that all of these factors (solar forcing, heat sinking, etc.) were more or less in equilibrium until we came along and started tipping the scales with CO2. If this positive positive feedback loop continues unchecked, we may soon be unable to do anything about it.

Yes there are many factors involved. I don't believe anyone is questioning that (except for you in post #486 where you state that "the global temperature has stopped rising [...] when there is more CO2 in the atmosphere than ever"). This statement seems to suggest that you think CO2 is the only factor - that's why I countered it. Now in your post #490 you seem to take that back and acknowledge that there any many factors in play. Seems like it's YOUR argument is the one that's changing.

*If you don't think money is the prime motivator behind the climate scare then you are naive. Can you imagine anything more delicious to the tax man than a tax on carbon? why you can't even get out of bed without producing some CO2. This is an everything tax and carbon credits are a new fiat currency. Don't think the bankers don't have erections over that.

*Sorry you don't like the term warmist. I think it is a convenient and not particularly offensive term. The term climate propagandist takes longer to type.

The term scientist would be misleading here, because the majority of people pushing this agenda are not actually scientists, at least not climate scientists, and the ones that are are making lots of money by stoking warmist agendas.

My comment about CO2 being busted was in reference to atmospheric CO2 no longer being the big bad bogeyman driving up the planet's temperature. Does it have an effect? Probably, but we are no where near any sort of crisis. Not in the way the IPCC said we would be by this time. In fact I think we are very fortunate to be around at this warmer segment of the climate scale. If CO2 had anything to do with that we should be grateful. The plants are loving it too.

*I really liked this little quote

"What's important to note is that all of these factors (solar forcing, heat sinking, etc.) were more or less in equilibrium until we came along and started tipping the scales with CO2. If this positive positive feedback loop continues unchecked, we may soon be unable to do anything about it."

Did you get that straight from scaryclimatetales.com probably under the link: imaginary scares that may happen.

*You made an assumption that I thought CO2 was the only factor. What a strange assumption. If I thought that, I would be on your side. Why would my suggesting that there are many factors in play effecting global temperature be a sign of my argument changing? Myself and people on my side of this argument have been saying that since the beginning. It is the warmists (sorry Climate Propagandists) that tried to pin it all on CO2. We called BS to that from the start.

Edited April 29, 2014 by canuckamuck

[wilcopops]

Sadly, we just can't figure out how to tax any of that.

It's statements like this that convince me you're just interested in throwing mud in the hopes that some of it will stick.

And what's with the name calling "warmist"? Why not say scientist? After all, it's the vast, vast majority of scientist you're truly arguing with - not me or anyone else on this forum.

The CO2 argument is busted, there many factors influencing climate.

You need to explain this. In what way is the CO2 argument "busted"? Are you asserting that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas? Because if you are, you've chosen a line of argument that can easily be falsified by anyone with an IR spectro-photometer and a gas cell. Most highs school science labs or community colleges have these items. The link was known 150 years ago (see: Tyndall) and the effects on climate change were demonstrated in the late 1800's (see: On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground). If you have any peer-reviewed studies countering this research, I'd like to see them.

What's important to note is that all of these factors (solar forcing, heat sinking, etc.) were more or less in equilibrium until we came along and started tipping the scales with CO2. If this positive positive feedback loop continues unchecked, we may soon be unable to do anything about it.

Yes there are many factors involved. I don't believe anyone is questioning that (except for you in post #486 where you state that "the global temperature has stopped rising [...] when there is more CO2 in the atmosphere than ever"). This statement seems to suggest that you think CO2 is the only factor - that's why I countered it. Now in your post #490 you seem to take that back and acknowledge that there any many factors in play. Seems like it's YOUR argument is the one that's changing.

*If you don't think money is the prime motivator behind the climate scare then you are naive. Can you imagine anything more delicious to the tax man than a tax on carbon? why you can't even get out of bed without producing some CO2. This is an everything tax and carbon credits are a new fiat currency. Don't think the bankers don't have erections over that.

*Sorry you don't like the term warmist. I think it is a convenient and not particularly offensive term. The term climate propagandist takes longer to type.

The term scientist would be misleading here, because the majority of people pushing this agenda are not actually scientists, at least not climate scientists, and the ones that are are making lots of money by stoking warmist agendas.

My comment about CO2 being busted was in reference to atmospheric CO2 no longer being the big bad bogeyman driving up the planet's temperature. Does it have an effect? Probably, but we are no where near any sort of crisis. Not in the way the IPCC said we would be by this time. In fact I think we are very fortunate to be around at this warmer segment of the climate scale. If CO2 had anything to do with that we should be grateful. The plants are loving it too.

*I really liked this little quote

"What's important to note is that all of these factors (solar forcing, heat sinking, etc.) were more or less in equilibrium until we came along and started tipping the scales with CO2. If this positive positive feedback loop continues unchecked, we may soon be unable to do anything about it."

Did you get that straight from scaryclimatetales.com probably under the link: imaginary scares that may happen.

*You made an assumption that I thought CO2 was the only factor. What a strange assumption. If I thought that, I would be on your side. Why would my suggesting that there are many factors in play effecting global temperature be a sign of my argument changing? Myself and people on my side of this argument have been saying that since the beginning. It is the warmists (sorry Climate Propagandists) that tried to pin it all on CO2. We called BS to that from the start.

It is looking more and more like the science aspect of AGW is going over the head of some and they are becoming obsessed with conspiratorial-like mumbo-jumbo promulgated by a populist press that has scant regard or understanding of the basic theories.

If they spent less time simply gainsaying or cherry-picking, i would hope that they might begin to see the whole picture.....but there is an underlying problem with absurd views so strongly held.....

As laymen we need to exercise discernment when we read up on this - to sort the rational from the sensational and improbable or just plain daft.......science is a process of skepticism - it involves constantly looking at theories, testing and questioning them....so if you keep up to speed on this you will notice that there are plenty of "arguments" or debates going on about climate change.....BUT, apart from the lunatic fringe very few question the basic science....what happens in the press and on some of the more "out there" Web sites is that these questions are often grabbed hold of, misunderstood or even deliberated distorted in order to suit the agenda of those fringe media......they are in fact science in REVERSE - they come up with the theory and then look around - clutching at straws even - for articles that they think might support their view. The difference is that the science is constantly changing as people investigate and debate, but the deniers NEVER change - they have one idea, "not happening" and that's it!

So, some posters are stuck - they seem to have been suckered by this type of thinking.

It has to be said that it is unlikely that anyone this site will change their opinion - in fact there is a whole bundle of scientific research been done into how people with opinions that obviously go against all logic will hold onto those ideas through thick and thin. I suppose it's a kind of relief to know that at least this kind of thinking is largely an irrelevance as reality tends to overrule in the long run.

[attrayant]

It seems we're moving away from talking about the science and moving towards shoring-up our faith-based positions. Stating that something must be true because we feel it to be so, or because it seems like it ought to be true. This is the point at which I usually drop out, because you can't reason somebody out of a position that they didn't use reason to get themselves into in the first place.

The argument at this point seem to be reduced to something like "there is too much money and too much political power involved in AGW to allow any hint that science has found it to be false". In other words, no amount of scientific data can be used to refute the denial position because there is too much money involved and therefore the data can't be trusted. Any new data that comes along can be conveniently waived-away as part of the agenda. The denier has made up his mind and set up a pro-active excuse for ignoring (or labeling "naïve") any future counter arguments.

Statements like this are almost impossible to respond to:

Can you imagine anything more delicious to the tax man than a tax on carbon?

Who is the "tax man"? The IRS? Perhaps the poster has forgotten that the IRS is a government agency and, as with almost all government agencies, is not supposed to show a profit at the end of the fiscal year. If they do, their budget is reduced in subsequent years.

Statements like this:

...the majority of people pushing this agenda are not actually scientists, at least not climate scientists, and the ones that are are making lots of money by stoking warmist agendas.

...are faith-based because absolutely no evidence has been provided to support it. At least the first part is factually incorrect because thousands of climate scientists all over the world are in agreement as far as climate change and its foreboding consequences (I assume that's what is meant by "pushing the agenda"). As for the second part, how do you know that "the ones that are" are making "lots of money"? Do you have access to their bank accounts? Tax returns? With no evidence in support of the statement, it's nothing more than a feeling on your part.

One thing is for sure: If there is any money to be made in climatology, it's on the denial side (oil companies). Not on the research side. What miserable little research grant scraps come from NASA and the NSF gets divided up among facilities and grad students, who get a miserable stipend of less than $20,000 a year while doing research. Professors certainly aren't wealthy, typically earning between 40 (starting) to 80 (tenured) thousand a year. Anyone who thinks that research departments are swimming in cash clearly hasn't spent much time in a graduate department.

[wilcopops]

"because you can't reason somebody out of a position that they didn't use reason to get themselves into in the first place." - well said!

[NumbNut]

"because you can't reason somebody out of a position that they didn't use reason to get themselves into in the first place." - well said!

Totally agree wilcopops, it's THE comment of this sad sorry-arsed excuse of a thread.

Take a bow attrayant, you've summed this conversation up in one fell swoop.

[canuckamuck]

Due to the fact that I am busy and that the replies to my post were mostly just postulation on my ability for rational thought; I will be brief in responding.

Attrayant believes that climate research is a poor man’s game, and that governments aren’t interested in hauling in taxes, they are purely interested in balanced books. So I would say with that level of naivety we should probably just let him work out reality on his own terms. But I did make a very small peek into what Google had in regards to money available to people in the climate research/prevention game and I found that in the USA, spending on climate change related programs was 77billion from 2008 through 2013. Also, I found that the world as a whole is spending a billion dollars a day to prevent Earth’s natural recovery from the last 1000 very cold years. Reminds me of the term ‘fool’s errand’.

Of course most of this meager spending went to undergrad researchers so they could buy their weekly supply of macaroni and cheese. Absolutely none of this money was in any way finding its way to the fuel tank of corporate jets flying starving science martyrs to international climate conferences

I see no attention was paid to the chart I posted, showing global mean temperatures of the last 5000 years. Which clearly show that warming and cooling trends are about as boring as rice crackers, and we have a long time to go before anyone can say it’s hot. And much longer before we can claim anything to be unprecedented. Of course I have no capacity for reason, so could someone else look at that chart and tell me whether or not the temperatures today seem absolutely within the normal historical range?

Edited April 30, 2014 by canuckamuck

[RickBradford]

The thing about GW is, the recommended actions to lessen it, are also good for the planet, whether GW is proven real or not. Lessening fossil fuel use is good no matter what angle you look at it.

That is an idiotic statement on many levels, but unfortunately one which accurately reflects a common attitude among career bureaucrats, including EU climate commissioner Connie Hedegaard or IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. They, of course, will never be affected by the policies they wish to impose on others less fortunate.

The idea that nothing is wrong but we must take drastic and damaging action anyway is a complete repudiation of the rational thought that has enabled us to live such comfortable lives nowadays.

If GW is not real, why stop burning fossil fuels? How is that 'good for the planet', whatever that meaningless phrase is supposed to signify?

Plants love CO2 and they love warmth, which you can easily check by visiting the Amazon and the Antarctic in quick succession. What plants like, animals like, as do humans.

The only viewpoint from which these measures appear to be 'good for the planet' is if you believe, as many extreme Greens do, that humans are a curse and a cancer on the planet.

In fact, the thing about GW is, the recommended actions to lessen it, are good for bureaucrats, banks, insurance companies, politicians, rage-filled activists and infantile narcissists, and bad for anyone who has to work for a living, which includes the billions of people around the world hovering above and below the poverty line.

[boomerangutang]

If you like breathing smog, and get a warm fuzzy feeling from seeing cities covered by yellow haze, roughly 300 days/per year, then you'll love increased fossil fuel use.

Similarly, if seeing increasing numbers of patients hacking and barely able to breathe brings a smile to your face, then by all means, let's increase fossil fuel use.

That's part of the picture of what's meant by such statements as: "Even if predictions of GW are proved wrong, the steps we, as humans take, to avoid GW are for the better."

Only someone who works within the fossil fuel industry, or somehow monetarily benefits from it, can be in favor of increased fossil fuel use. There are how many people now on the planet - 7 billion? Each man woman and child is responsible for an average of 1 ton of CO2/year. If that's fine with deniers, then perhaps they should move to a city in China, where air is brownish-yellow.

[RickBradford]

^^^

Come on, that's a complete furphy.

The argument (from Hedegaard and Edenhofer) isn't about diesel fumes, but about CO2 itself, which cannot in any way cause smog, yellow haze, or people hacking. If these bureaucrats were promoting a war on urban pollution, I'd have more time for them.

Thousands of power plants across the world put out less particulate matter than the average Indian family's dung fire, which is the future that the extreme Greens would like to take us back to.

The attempt to link personal CO2 footprints with brownish-yellow hazes in China, while emotionally appealing to the weak-minded, really has no place in any rational discussion about global warming.

To make the point clear: burning fossil fuels doesn't have to produce particulate pollution of the kind you describe, as the West has amply demonstrated. Nor is that the issue under discussion in the climate debate.

It is the colorless, invisible, odorless, unreactive, harmless, and patently beneficial gas CO2 itself which is the target of the UN and EU bureaucrats, for reasons which have everything to do with their personal well-being, and nothing to do with the planet.

[attrayant]

I see no attention was paid to the chart I posted, showing global mean temperatures of the last 5000 years.

I didn't comment because the accompanying question was a non-sequitur. You posted the image and asked:

Please explain how we contributed to all the changes, and what is different about the situation today.

I don't believe that anyone here has made the argument that humans are responsible for the global climate of 5000 years ago. But I can address the second part. What's different about today? Well for starters we have a global civilization and economy that is tightly interwoven with the global climate. Secondly, there was a LOT less cap ice during those times than there is today. That means sea levels were much, much higher than they are today. If all cap ice melts, sea levels would be somewhere around 60 meters higher than they are today. The eastern seaboard of the USA would look something like this:

Luckily for us, we're forecasting a rise of "only" 1-2 meters by the end of this century. That's still a huge financial loss for coastal cities and will displace tens of millions of people. Flood damage to low-lying areas is conservatively estimated at 5-10% of global GDP. Current exposed assets are in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Potential future exposed assets are in the trillions of dollars (cite: Ranking Port Cities with High Exposure and Vulnerability to Climate Extremes). Vast areas of agricultural tracts becoming barren. Okay, Greenland might become somewhat more suitable for farming after a few decades of soil conditioning. It's just a shame that almost nobody lives there.

So you see, it's not just about whether or not "it's hot", it's about all the other bad things that happen when it gets hot.

we have a long time to go before anyone can say its hot. And much longer before we can claim anything to be unprecedented.

Once again you're setting up straw men, as I don't see anyone talking about precedent. What we're talking about is the threat to our existing civilization - something that wasn't around 5000 years ago.

Of course I have no capacity for reason, so could someone else look at that chart and tell me whether or not the temperatures today seem absolutely within the normal historical range?

That depends on how you define "normal". If a quarter of the population regularly drops dead from heat stroke and the remainder has a lifespan of only 35 years, is that "normal"? Just because something extreme happened in the Earth's history doesn't make it "normal" for those of us who are alive today (and would like to stay that way).

[canuckamuck]

Non Sequitur or you just didn't think about it. Regardless, there was a chart posted that showed the global mean temperature going up and down through the ages. You can see that we are somewhere in the middle of historical temperature extremes. But you can also see that a rise is quite overdue. The last 900 years or so were unusually cold.

Here is that graphic again, of course it is cherry-picked for the year 3000BC a beneficial year for us deniers

If I am allowed an assumption here, I would say the humans had very little to do with the oscillation of temperature in the past. Yet we are struck by the fact that in the last 5000 years there have been at least 8 peaks lasting hundreds of years that were hotter than what we are experiencing today. On top of that it would appear that the normal temperature of the earth appears to be hotter than what we have today.

Now how on Earth are we going to keep the Earth from its normal temperature range? Seems like a difficult thing to do. Can you also stop the tides?

In regard now to your points about sea level rise; by what method have they determined that sea level will rise 1000 to 2000 millimeters in the next ninety years? The last 100 have brought a consistent rise of 2mm per year. In fact I have seen that sea level rise is declining for the last 10 years. Link

And if it is as you say, that 5000 years ago the ocean was 60 meters higher than it is now. How will we humans prevent this from ever happening again?

The point about precedents should be obvious. If we are not in a position of unprecedented warming, then we cannot determine if there is any anthropogenic warming at all, there is no way to know.

It makes little difference that now we have a huge population now. The Earth is going to do its thing whether we like it or not. Wouldn't it be better to get ready for it? seriously at 2mm per year, we are going to be able to deal with it.

Your quote “Just because something extreme happened in the Earth's history doesn't make it "normal" for those of us who are alive today (and would like to stay that way).”

There have been asteroid impacts in the past. Not wanting them to happen again won’t stop it from happening. It is normal to get a big one from time to time. What is normal for the Earth may not be part of your experience, but you aren't so important that things will change in your favor.

Edited May 1, 2014 by canuckamuck

[wilcopops]

Non Sequitur or you just didn't think about it. Regardless, there was a chart posted that showed the global mean temperature going up and down through the ages. You can see that we are somewhere in the middle of historical temperature extremes. But you can also see that a rise is quite overdue. The last 900 years or so were unusually cold.

Here is that graphic again, of course it is cherry-picked for the year 3000BC a beneficial year for us deniers

If I am allowed an assumption here, I would say the humans had very little to do with the oscillation of temperature in the past. Yet we are struck by the fact that in the last 5000 years there have been at least 8 peaks lasting hundreds of years that were hotter than what we are experiencing today. On top of that it would appear that the normal temperature of the earth appears to be hotter than what we have today.

Now how on Earth are we going to keep the Earth from its normal temperature range? Seems like a difficult thing to do. Can you also stop the tides?

In regard now to your points about sea level rise; by what method have they determined that sea level will rise 1000 to 2000 millimeters in the next ninety years? The last 100 have brought a consistent rise of 2mm per year. In fact I have seen that sea level rise is declining for the last 10 years. Link

And if it is as you say, that 5000 years ago the ocean was 60 meters higher than it is now. How will we humans prevent this from ever happening again?

The point about precedents should be obvious. If we are not in a position of unprecedented warming, then we cannot determine if there is any anthropogenic warming at all, there is no way to know.

It makes little difference that now we have a huge population now. The Earth is going to do its thing whether we like it or not. Wouldn't it be better to get ready for it? seriously at 2mm per year, we are going to be able to deal with it.

Your quote “Just because something extreme happened in the Earth's history doesn't make it "normal" for those of us who are alive today (and would like to stay that way).”

There have been asteroid impacts in the past. Not wanting them to happen again won’t stop it from happening. It is normal to get a big one from time to time. What is normal for the Earth may not be part of your experience, but you aren't so important that things will change in your favor.

Where did you find those graphs?

you realise the scale is FAR too small?

try this from NASA.

How is Today’s Warming Different from the Past? Earth has experienced climate change in the past without help from humanity. We know about past climates because of evidence left in tree rings, layers of ice in glaciers, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. For example, bubbles of air in glacial ice trap tiny samples of Earth’s atmosphere, giving scientists a history of greenhouse gases that stretches back more than 800,000 years. The chemical make-up of the ice provides clues to the average global temperature.

Using this ancient evidence, scientists have built a record of Earth’s past climates, or “paleoclimates.” The paleoclimate record combined with global models shows past ice ages as well as periods even warmer than today. But the paleoclimate record also reveals that the current climatic warming is occurring much more rapidly than past warming events.

Edited May 3, 2014 by Scott
Graphs edited out

[canuckamuck]

5000 years is perfect for this application. It shows 8 major warming events, all which peaked within half a degree of each other, so it shows what we can expect to happen next It is much more relevant to us than events that happened hundreds of thousands of years ago, because if we are trying to predict the next several hundred years, a +hundred thousand year scale is possibly full of irrelevance. That would be like using a year long cardiograph to check a patients heart rate. Also the 5000 year chart was put up because of claims that I was cherry picking data. Warmists prefer a one hundred year chart, because it only indicates increase.

Anyhow if you did go back further you would see even greater extremes which occurred naturally and my original point would be made even stronger.

What people should really be concerned about is the last 1000 years average being so much colder than previously.

Using this ancient evidence, scientists have built a record of Earth’s past climates, or “paleoclimates.” The paleoclimate record combined with global models shows past ice ages as well as periods even warmer than today. But the paleoclimate record also reveals that the current climatic warming is occurring much more rapidly than past warming events.

The 5000 year chart shows circa 800 AD had a similar warming trend, which ended just as suddenly as it began, and other relatively rapid warmings as well.

Edited May 2, 2014 by canuckamuck

[KonaRain]

Please guys, no calling idiotic..

I'm interested in the sea level statistics..waiting to see how this plays out..here on the forum. Here's something important that I heard on the radio today.. pollution particles and Your Heart. http://www.islaearth.org/mobile/

I see it says mobile, its today's show which is May 1 over here.. read or listen.. 2 min. in length.. aloha, thanks for all Your good research!!

Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Edited May 2, 2014 by KonaRain

[wilcopops]

5000 years is perfect for this application. It shows 8 major warming events, all which peaked within half a degree of each other, so it shows what we can expect to happen next It is much more relevant to us than events that happened hundreds of thousands of years ago, because if we are trying to predict the next several hundred years, a +hundred thousand year scale is possibly full of irrelevance. That would be like using a year long cardiograph to check a patients heart rate. Also the 5000 year chart was put up because of claims that I was cherry picking data. Warmists prefer a one hundred year chart, because it only indicates increase.

Anyhow if you did go back further you would see even greater extremes which occurred naturally and my original point would be made even stronger.

What people should really be concerned about is the last 1000 years average being so much colder than previously.

Using this ancient evidence, scientists have built a record of Earth’s past climates, or “paleoclimates.” The paleoclimate record combined with global models shows past ice ages as well as periods even warmer than today. But the paleoclimate record also reveals that the current climatic warming is occurring much more rapidly than past warming events.

The 5000 year chart shows circa 800 AD had a similar warming trend, which ended just as suddenly as it began, and other relatively rapid warmings as well.

You really don't gettit do you? Do you seriously think that those researching climate haven't taken this into account?

Where did you find those graphs?

Were they on their own?

Who interpreted them?

Edited May 2, 2014 by wilcopops

[attrayant]

Anyhow if you did go back further you would see even greater extremes which occurred naturally and my original point would be made even stronger.

Then let's go back further:

And so the discussion turns from one of science to one of morals. Your position seems to be that the climate is eventually going to hell anyway, and that we are powerless to do anything about it. This defeatist attitude is anathema to me. As you and others have pointed out, climate science is still in its infancy. But that doesn't mean we haven't learned anything yet. Thanks to basic physics we know that the Earth's energy budget isn't fixed, and there are things we can do to influence it. If human actions can make matters worse, then why can't we also make them better? If limiting greenhouse gas emissions delays the next heat wave (or makes it less severe) wouldn't that be a good thing? If your answer to this is "no, because it would be too expensive", then we have a fundamental difference in priorities that will most likely never be resolved.

Over the lifetime of the planet, extinction of species typically happens when organisms can't adapt quickly enough to changes in their environment. Humans might be able to tolerate a very gradual return to a hotter planet, but we certainly can't adapt within a couple hundred years. Whole cities need to be relocated. Renewable energy sources need to be developed. So I believe we are morally obligated to do what we can to limit or eliminate our contribution to a rapidly hotter world.

A few hundred thousand years ago, humans migrated from the savannas of West Africa and spread rapidly into present-day Europe and Asia. This migration coincided with successive cycles of glacial periods known as the ice age, and it also matched the movements and growth patterns of plants and animals. Our present day mega-cities, political territoriality and global economy no longer allow us to simply pick up our tribe and move to some place more temperate when the climate changes.

As for questioning sea level rise - does anyone deny that cap ice has been melting? Satellites using laser altimetry are pretty good at measuring cap ice volume. Although there are other methods of measuring - namely radar altimetry and gravimetric data. Averaging this data gives us something like a net loss of 400 gigatons of cap ice melting in the past 10-12 years. A very small amount of that sublimates and becomes vapor, but the vast majority runs into the sea. A second factor contributing to sea level rise is that water expands when it gets warmer. The entire Greenland ice cap is equal to about 7 meters of sea level rise. Here's a joint report from 47 climatologists and physicists at 26 different labs and universities:

A Reconciled Estimate of Ice Sheet Mass Imbalance

As the title implies, a key objective of the effort was for all of these independent agents to come to some agreement on how much ice has melted and at what rate it contributes to sea level rise. Slide 6 shows a rise of 80 cm by 2100, and is supported by another study below:

Kinematic Constraints on Glacier Contributions to 21st-Century Sea-Level Rise - WT Pfeffer et al.

Abstract:

On the basis of climate modeling and analogies with past conditions, the potential for multimeter sea level by the end of the 21st century has been proposed. [...] We find that a total seal level rise of about two meters by 2100 could occur under physically possible geological conditions but only if all variables are quickly accelerated to extremely high limits. More plausible but still accelerated conditions lead to sea level rise by 2100 of about .8 meters. These roughly constrained scenarios provide a "most likely" starting point for refinements in sea level forecasts that include ice flow dynamics.

The authors give the range of .8 to 2 meters - the lower end being most likely. You can use Google Earth to see what that does to your neighborhood. As for Thailand, coastal Bangkok becomes inundated while the inlands become extremely swampy as rainwater takes much longer to drain the gulf:

It's bad enough that 750,000 people die world-wide every year from malaria and other mosquito-born diseases. I can't imagine what that number will be when we're living in a swamp.

[canuckamuck]

5000 years is perfect for this application. It shows 8 major warming events, all which peaked within half a degree of each other, so it shows what we can expect to happen next It is much more relevant to us than events that happened hundreds of thousands of years ago, because if we are trying to predict the next several hundred years, a +hundred thousand year scale is possibly full of irrelevance. That would be like using a year long cardiograph to check a patients heart rate. Also the 5000 year chart was put up because of claims that I was cherry picking data. Warmists prefer a one hundred year chart, because it only indicates increase.

Anyhow if you did go back further you would see even greater extremes which occurred naturally and my original point would be made even stronger.

What people should really be concerned about is the last 1000 years average being so much colder than previously.

Using this ancient evidence, scientists have built a record of Earth’s past climates, or “paleoclimates.” The paleoclimate record combined with global models shows past ice ages as well as periods even warmer than today. But the paleoclimate record also reveals that the current climatic warming is occurring much more rapidly than past warming events.

The 5000 year chart shows circa 800 AD had a similar warming trend, which ended just as suddenly as it began, and other relatively rapid warmings as well.

You really don't gettit do you? Do you seriously think that those researching climate haven't taken this into account?

Where did you find those graphs?

Were they on their own?

Who interpreted them?

Find a chart you agree with and post it here.

[canuckamuck]

Attrayant, you seem like a smart guy, but we are quite clearly in different places here. In fact I am not sure if the goal posts aren't shifting.

You seem to feel that regardless of what we have seen to be consistent historical peaks in temperature that humans do have the power to at least slow the warming. In fact you seem to be saying that despite the cost, it is imperative that we try.

Well for me to have an opinion about that, I would require certain types of information. For example:

-How quickly will the warming take place? Are we certain, because they seem to have it wrong so far?

-How much can we reduce the warming? Is it a win with any amount of reduced warming?

-How much would it cost? Human and environmental cost of maintaining a non-developed third world, as well as the economic impact globally?

-How much would it cost to simply adapt and move civilization up the hill, or into the water or both?

And so on.

And I am not saying the climate is going to hell so screw it. I am saying we have some massive unanswered questions before us and if we are going to attempt (the greatest feat of all human history) to contain Mother Nature, don’t you think we should know if it whether it would be smarter to be flexible and adapt.

And what if the whole thing is over already and we are peaked for now? What a fantastic waste of resources would be laid at our feet.

And then this statistic has always bothered me.

The total percentage CO2 in the atmosphere is .00397%. 3.4% of this is created by us annually. So a total reduction of all CO2 by humans would represent the removal of 0.00013498% of CO2 annually from our atmosphere.

How much difference could it possibly make to the climate, particularly on a volcano year? And how could we succeed in stopping all emissions without having the human catastrophe that you are trying to prevent in the first place?

[wilcopops]

5000 years is perfect for this application. It shows 8 major warming events, all which peaked within half a degree of each other, so it shows what we can expect to happen next It is much more relevant to us than events that happened hundreds of thousands of years ago, because if we are trying to predict the next several hundred years, a +hundred thousand year scale is possibly full of irrelevance. That would be like using a year long cardiograph to check a patients heart rate. Also the 5000 year chart was put up because of claims that I was cherry picking data. Warmists prefer a one hundred year chart, because it only indicates increase.

Anyhow if you did go back further you would see even greater extremes which occurred naturally and my original point would be made even stronger.

What people should really be concerned about is the last 1000 years average being so much colder than previously.

Using this ancient evidence, scientists have built a record of Earth’s past climates, or “paleoclimates.” The paleoclimate record combined with global models shows past ice ages as well as periods even warmer than today. But the paleoclimate record also reveals that the current climatic warming is occurring much more rapidly than past warming events.

The 5000 year chart shows circa 800 AD had a similar warming trend, which ended just as suddenly as it began, and other relatively rapid warmings as well.

You really don't gettit do you? Do you seriously think that those researching climate haven't taken this into account?

Where did you find those graphs?

Were they on their own?

Who interpreted them?

Find a chart you agree with and post it here.

QED - I think that just about sums up your methodology, which in turn reveals the lack of substance in anything you've said.

[canuckamuck]

Do you get a quarter every time you post QED? It is getting a little worn out.

If you can't find you're own stats you're stuck with mine.

[canuckamuck]

Ok I decided to be a bit kinder. The charts are made by Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, PHD. Geologist, glacier expert and climate scientist. Attached is his chart for 10,000 years if you want to compare. But these graphs are simply temperature records. This data is not in dispute.

Fascinating how much of the last 10,000 years was so much hotter than today. Yet by IPCC statements you would say we are in warming crisis. Looks like a rundown to an ice age to me.

Edited May 2, 2014 by canuckamuck