Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Vice-Regent

Avoiding Hothouse Earth

Recommended Posts

The Planet Is Dangerously Close to the Tipping Point for a 'Hothouse Earth'

 
aHR0cDovL3d3dy5saXZlc2NpZW5jZS5jb20vaW1hZ2VzL2kvMDAwLzEwMS8wNjEvb3JpZ2luYWwvc2h1dHRlcnN0b2NrXzEyMDU1ODEyNy5qcGc=
 
Credit: Shutterstock

It's the year 2300. Extreme weather events such as building-flattening hurricanes, years-long droughts and wildfires are so common that they no longer make headlines. The last groups of humans left near the sizzling equator pack their bags and move toward the now densely populated poles.

This so-called "hothouse Earth," where global temperatures will be 7 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit (4 to 5 degrees Celsius) higher than preindustrial temperatures and sea levels will be 33 to 200 feet (10 to 60 meters) higher than today, is hard to imagine — but easy to fall into, said a new perspective article published today (Aug. 6) in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. [Top 9 Ways the World Could End]

 

In the article, a group of scientists argued that there is a threshold temperature above which natural feedback systems that currently keep the Earth cool will unravel. At that point, a cascade of climate events will thrust the planet into a "hothouse" state. Though the scientists don't know exactly what this threshold is, they said it could be as slight as 2 degrees C (around 4 degrees F) of warming above preindustrial levels.

Sound familiar? The 2 degrees C mark plays a big role in the Paris Agreement, the landmark 2016 agreement signed by 179 countries to combat climate change by reducing carbon emissions (the same one that the U.S. announced it would withdraw from last year). In that accord, countries agreed to work to keep global temperature rise well below 2 degrees C, and ideally below 1.5 degrees C, above preindustrial levels this century.
 
"This paper gives very strong scientific support … that we should avoid coming too close or even reaching 2 degrees Celsius warming," article co-author Johan Rockström, director of the Stockholm Resilience Center and a professor of water systems and global sustainability at Stockholm University in Sweden, told Live Science.
 

Changing Earth's rhythm

For the last million years, Earth has naturally cycled in and out of an ice age every 100,000 years or so. The planet left the last ice age around 12,000 years ago and is currently in an interglacial cycle called the Holocene epoch. In this cycle, Earth has natural systems that help keep it cool, even during the warmer interglacial periods.

But many scientists argue that due to the immense impact of humans on climate and the environment, the current geological age should be called the Anthropocene (from anthropogenic, which means originating with human activity). Temperatures are almost as hot as the maximum historical temperature  during an interglacial cycle, Rockström said.

If carbon emissions continue unabated, the planet might leave the glacial-interglacial cycle and be thrust into a new age of the "hothouse Earth."

Today, we emit 40 billion tons of carbon dioxide a year from burning fossil fuels, Rockström said. But roughly half of those emissions are taken up and stored by the oceans, trees and soil, he said.

However, we are now seeing signs that we are pushing the system too far — cutting down too many trees, degrading too much soil, taking out too much fresh water and pumping too much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, Rockström said.

Scientists fear that if we reach a certain temperature threshold, some of these natural processes will reverse and the planet "will become a self-heater,"Rockström said. That means, forests, soil and water will release the carbon they're storing.

"The moment the planet becomes a source of greenhouse gas emissions together with us humans, then as you can imagine, things are accelerating very fast in the wrong direction," he said. [Doom and Gloom: Top 10 Postapocalyptic Worlds]

Many tipping points

In their perspective paper, Rockström and his team corroborated existing literature on various natural feedback processes and concluded that many of them can serve as "tipping elements." When one tips, many of the others follow.

Nature has feedback mechanisms, such as a rainforest's capability to create its own humidity and rain, that keep ecosystems in equilibrium. If the rainforest is subject to increasing warming and deforestation, however, the mechanism slowly gets weaker, Rockström said.

"When it crosses a tipping point, the feedback mechanism changes direction," Rockström said, and the rainforest morphs from a moisture engine into a self-dryer. Eventually, the rainforest turns into a savanna and, in the process, releases carbon, he said.

This, in turn, can become part of a cascade that would influence other processes around the world, such as ocean circulation and El Niño events. Other tipping points include the thawing of permafrost, loss of Arctic summer sea ice and the loss of coral reefs.

A global call for help

The first big goal should be to completely stop carbon emissions by 2050, Rockström said. But that won't be enough, he added.

In order to stay away from these tipping points, the "whole world [needs to] embark on a major project to become sustainable across all sectors," he said.

That could be a challenge, as countries around the world grow increasingly nationalistic, he said. Instead of focusing on narrow national goals, the world should collectively work to reduce carbon emissions — for instance by creating investment funds that can support poorer nations that don't have as much capacity to reduce emissions as richer countries do, he said.

All of this means "that it's, scientifically speaking, completely unacceptable that a country like the U.S. leaves the Paris Agreement, because now more than ever, we need every country in the world to collectively decarbonize … in order to secure a stable planet," Rockström said.

The new paper is an opinion article that includes no new research but rather draws on the existing literature, Michael Mann, a distinguished professor of meteorology at Pennsylvania State University who was not part of the study, told Live Science in an email.

"That having been said, the authors do, in my view, make a credible case that we could, in the absence of aggressive near-term efforts to reduce carbon emissions, commit to truly dangerous and irreversible climate change in a matter of decades," Mann said.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abstract

We explore the risk that self-reinforcing feedbacks could push the Earth System toward a planetary threshold that, if crossed, could prevent stabilization of the climate at intermediate temperature rises and cause continued warming on a “Hothouse Earth” pathway even as human emissions are reduced. Crossing the threshold would lead to a much higher global average temperature than any interglacial in the past 1.2 million years and to sea levels significantly higher than at any time in the Holocene. We examine the evidence that such a threshold might exist and where it might be. If the threshold is crossed, the resulting trajectory would likely cause serious disruptions to ecosystems, society, and economies. Collective human action is required to steer the Earth System away from a potential threshold and stabilize it in a habitable interglacial-like state. Such action entails stewardship of the entire Earth System—biosphere, climate, and societies—and could include decarbonization of the global economy, enhancement of biosphere carbon sinks, behavioral changes, technological innovations, new governance arrangements, and transformed social values.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/07/31/1810141115

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Notice that the PNAS paper doesn't mention geoengineering. Hinting that this method of approach is not viable going forward. We could debate this all day but the Paris Climate Accord has paved the way for mass confusion, scientific reticence, and planet hacking of unprecedented scale which ultimately will not rectify the millennium climate predicament without a systems design approach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another factor to consider is that the human contribution amount towards GHG forcing will drop off drastically after 2C warming. Perhaps this was the intention behind the Paris Climate Agreement/Accord. Burn up carbon until the very end. However natural GHG sources will no doubt become more profound when the human contribution declines. Such that the traditional argument of civilization collapse causing climate stabilization is not valid.

You simply cannot burn prolific amounts of carbon-based fuels on a Hothouse Earth which is not saving grace but a reminder that nature is large and in charge and we should take a step back and work with nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's alarming about this sort of article ... (for me) isn't it's content.   It's the fact that said 'tipping points' and 'feed-backs,' all those hypothesis and even evidences supporting them as more than merely hypothesis, have been common place knowledge in the ethos of science dating back decades. 

So .. now it's getting dramatic lava matte imaged headlines - okay...  but where was this in 1990?  I think back to the culture of America and what I knew of the world in 1990, when the contents of that article was raising brows in scientific circles - only - and how blithely unaware everyone else was ... not involved in consortium of those ilks ... and it exposes the real problem we have as we continue careering toward the edge.

What is really going on with this GW holocaust crap is that by the time the critical mass of Humanity is finally functional and operating in the kind of environmentally responsible manner to prevent all this catastrophe, that day is realized ... what, 100 years too late?  

It's taken some 30 years to prep society's "readiness" to even read an article of this ilk (let alone accept it) ... That is cause to give one pause. It's a finite example of an apparent necessity Nature may not be able to provide.  We don't have that kind of time. 

The simplest solution is right there ... there needs to be a population correction.  The achievement of some utopian, well-adaptive Humanity that goes about their ways and means on this planet, the shortest route to that [fantasy] starts there; two of those are not mutually exclusive in the total model of environmental responsibility.  One who dares aver such extreme points of view, their math is right... unfortunately.  By all means, provide an alternate arithmetic for solving this crisis, one that arrives at a healthy world with plastic islands in the Pacific Ocean, Plankton die-offs ... a break-down soil and the extinction of agrarian zone ... deadly waves of pathogens ... basically everything that IS going to happen, but only rolls eyes, and, well .. you can't. 

Remove the numbers, removes the problems... more importantly, removes the problem of there not being enough time.

And, population correction doesn't have to be some Emmerichian big-budget horror story, either; it's just a choice that is [unfortunately] not one that is likely to be made by the hoi polloi masses that walk the planet - another component in the larger catch-22 conundrum.   

But, rest assured... if they don't choose to do so themselves, the crisis will eventually force that result one way or the other.  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On face value humans only respond to short term threats. There may never be a time where humanity is in harmony with the environment. Imagine a series of peaks and valleys in human population for the next several millennia (via a combination of war, climate, and disease) or perhaps a complete near-extinction of humans for the foreseeable future.

Put simply - we are not wired for hothouse climates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Vice-Regent said:

On face value humans only respond to short term threats. There may never be a time where humanity is in harmony with the environment. Imagine a series a of peaks and valleys in human population for the next several millennia (via a combination of war, climate, and disease) or perhaps a complete near-extinction of humans for the foreseeable future.

Put simply - we are not wired for hothouse climates.

I hear ya ... But for me, I would reword your ending text as:   Put simply - we are not wired for responding to perceived threats that do not pass through at least one of our five senses, first.  

The crucible time purifies ... we call it evolution.  Fact of the matter is  (and this is my opinion only - it's not a peer-reviewed/paper extraction of sorts..) the last 100 year's worth of technological "advantages" means by arithmetic a "disadvantage" somewhere else.  It challenges the intellect ... deeply, to believe that 100 years worth of foisting technology onto Humanity, and what it took to do said foisting... was enough time to bear that purification process.  Put simply, the consequences are an open-book. 

That arithmetic is how nature works.  Nothing is lost or destroyed. As far as all intellectual basis can be derived from empirical evidence, to philosophies that are tested, and back, spanning the sum-total of many, many millennia of Humanity, everything is conserved. Thus, we cannot extract resource and remold it into this modern technological "arrogance" (to throw some snark into the matter...), without it taking away from something else.  

We know we've taken so much fossil fuels out of the Earth. But there is a secondary subtraction, that we (as far as I can tell) don't nearly consider enough, and it is not physical.  It is not physical in the sense of: burn fossil fuel --> anthropogenic GW.  See, the Earth (...risking sounding outre) doesn't care whether it becomes like Venus or Mars. It'll go on ahead and trundle about the sun for eternity if the sun's eventual swelling and extinction doesn't vaporize it first.  But, for our interest ... the vitality of the Earth, that is what is subtracted.   Some vital "organelles" of the Earth suffer ... so that the vitality of the technological marvel can succeed.  Take from one, give to the other - everything is conserved. 

You mentioned a 'near-extinction' ... A 'correction' (at least as I proposed above) doesn't have to be so extreme.  Like I said, it can be a controlled effort... You just can't have more than two viable off-spring per mating practices.   And, it wouldn't hurt to limit that to one for ... oh some calculated 50-year period or so. Let natural die-off and even (cruel as it may to state..) cataclysm removal rates trim the fat and lean out populations.  I agree that it is probably an unrealistic idealized state, to envision some eurphoric balance between our ways and means as a species involving the entirety of the world.  However, at least approaching a better state would begin through population control - the system et al thus has a chance to compensate. That's really what this is about... not exceeding those compensation rates is the new Commandment.

If we don't ... I really like the recent jest made by Neil DeGrass Tyson... I'm not sure I got this exactly to text, but to paraphrase:  'The beauty about science is that it is true whether you believe it or not' And, for all the protestations of a schismatic society aside, and their remarkable penchants for eliding facts and/or ignoring sciences that don't fit their agenda,  there is no Natural equation of reality that says what you don't believe in, won't kill you -  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/7/2018 at 11:56 AM, Vice-Regent said:

The Planet Is Dangerously Close to the Tipping Point for a 'Hothouse Earth'

A global call for help

The first big goal should be to completely stop carbon emissions by 2050, Rockström said. But that won't be enough, he added.

In order to stay away from these tipping points, the "whole world [needs to] embark on a major project to become sustainable across all sectors," he said.

That could be a challenge, as countries around the world grow increasingly nationalistic, he said. Instead of focusing on narrow national goals, the world should collectively work to reduce carbon emissions — for instance by creating investment funds that can support poorer nations that don't have as much capacity to reduce emissions as richer countries do, he said.

All of this means "that it's, scientifically speaking, completely unacceptable that a country like the U.S. leaves the Paris Agreement, because now more than ever, we need every country in the world to collectively decarbonize … in order to secure a stable planet," Rockström said.

The new paper is an opinion article that includes no new research but rather draws on the existing literature, Michael Mann, a distinguished professor of meteorology at Pennsylvania State University who was not part of the study, told Live Science in an email.

"That having been said, the authors do, in my view, make a credible case that we could, in the absence of aggressive near-term efforts to reduce carbon emissions, commit to truly dangerous and irreversible climate change in a matter of decades," Mann said.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abstract

We explore the risk that self-reinforcing feedbacks could push the Earth System toward a planetary threshold that, if crossed, could prevent stabilization of the climate at intermediate temperature rises and cause continued warming on a “Hothouse Earth” pathway even as human emissions are reduced. Crossing the threshold would lead to a much higher global average temperature than any interglacial in the past 1.2 million years and to sea levels significantly higher than at any time in the Holocene. We examine the evidence that such a threshold might exist and where it might be. If the threshold is crossed, the resulting trajectory would likely cause serious disruptions to ecosystems, society, and economies. Collective human action is required to steer the Earth System away from a potential threshold and stabilize it in a habitable interglacial-like state. Such action entails stewardship of the entire Earth System—biosphere, climate, and societies—and could include decarbonization of the global economy, enhancement of biosphere carbon sinks, behavioral changes, technological innovations, new governance arrangements, and transformed social values.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/07/31/1810141115

 

Michael Mann gives his approval... really? I mean he's been the center of controversy for a ton of issues. He's sued people for writing critically about his "hockey stick" warming graph and he also conveniently left out some critical data on that graph;  the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age among many other issues.

Much of the article originally posted reads like an alarmist/fear mongering article more than anything else. There is plenty of data out there, if one reads through various publications, journals, etc., to promote discussion that the recent warming trend could be primarily natural rather than AGW. The cyclical nature of various atmospheric properties, ocean currents, solar influence, etc are an incredibly complex system of checks and balances that operate in a way we are only beginning to gain a tiny understanding of. We have much to learn and discover in science; these articles designed to induce fear, panic and worry are not only unhelpful they have caused the public to lose trust in them due to repeated failed predictions.

 

There is data out there that indicates increased CO2 levels have led to increased crop yields and plant life rather than drought/famine, see below.

Quote

Zeng et al., 2018

Leaf area index (LAI) is increasing throughout the globe, implying the Earth greening. Global modelling studies support this contention, yet satellite observations and model simulations have never been directly compared. Here, for the first time, we used a coupled land-climate model to quantify the potential impact of the satellite-observed Earth greening over the past 30 years on the terrestrial water cycle. The global LAI enhancement by 8% between the early 1980s and the early 2010s is modelled to have caused increases of 12.0 ±2.4 mm yr-1 in evapotranspiration and 12.1 ±2.7 mm yr-1 in precipitation — about 55 ±25% and 28 ±6% of the observed increases in land evapotranspiration and precipitation, respectively.

 

Since the polar bears are supposed to go extinct according to the climate fear mongers out there, let's look at some research data recently done on that.

Quote

Laforest et al., 2018 

A majority of participants indicated that the local polar bear population was stable or increasing. … [Participants] indicated that polar bear body condition is stable; they cited the fact that polar bears are capable of hunting seals in open water as a factor contributing to the stable body condition of the bears. … None of the participants explicitly linked the effects of a warming climate to specific impacts on polar bears. … Five participants indicated that polar bears are adept swimmers capable of hunting seals in open water. Residents of communities along Baffin Bay have also expressed this viewpoint (Dowsley and Wenzel, 2008), whereas Inuvialuit of the Western Arctic had variable perceptions of the ability of bears to catch seals in open water (Joint Secretariat, 2015). The view of polar bears as effective open-water hunters is not consistent with the Western scientific understanding that bears rely on the sea ice platform for catching prey (Stirling and McEwan, 1975; Smith, 1980). The implications of this disagreement are paramount, given that scientists suggest that the greatest threat to polar bears associated with a decrease in sea ice is a significant decrease in access to marine mammal prey (Stirling and Derocher, 1993; Derocher et al., 2004) … A recent aerial survey of the Southern Hudson Bay subpopulation concluded that the abundance of polar bears has remained steady since 1986 (943 bears; SE: 174) (Obbard et al., 2015). The survey included the entire coastal range and offshore island habitat of the Southern Hudson Bay subpopulation, except for the eastern James Bay coast. Taken together, the results of the aerial survey and the participant responses from Wemindji and Chisasibi indicate that the local population has remained stable. However, the unanimous responses from participants in Whapmagoostui/Kuujjuarapik suggest that there has been a localized increase in the number of bears near Whapmagoostui/Kuujjuarapik.

 

Tropical activity in the Atlantic has shown a decrease in recent years rather than the gloom and doom predictions of more hurricanes.

Quote

Truchelut and Staeling, 2018 The extremely active 2017 Atlantic hurricane season concluded an extended period of quiescent continental United States tropical cyclone landfall activity that began in 2006, commonly referred to as the landfall drought. We introduce an extended climatology of U.S. tropical cyclone activity based on accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) and use this data set to investigate variability and trends in landfall activity.

The [hurricane landfall] drought years between 2006 and 2016 recorded an average value of total annual ACE [accumulated cyclone energy] over the U.S. that was less than 60% of the 1900–2017 average. Scaling this landfall activity metric by basin-wide activity reveals a statistically significant downward trend since 1950, with the percentage of total Atlantic ACE expended over the continental U.S. at a series minimum during the recent drought period.

 

Then there is the infamous "climategate" scandal where it was revealed that scientists writing views opposing or questioning man-made global warming (in favor of natural cycles) were intentionally silenced/not published which is especially applicable to the articles cited in your original post.

Quote

Olson, 2018 Opinion polls and other research show a public that frequently perceives climate science and associated AGW threats as complicated, uncertain and temporally and spatially distant (Anghelcev et al., 2015; Bennett et al., 2016; Gordon et al., 2011). Thus climate scientists, celebrities, public policymakers and other AGW social marketers face a daunting task in convincing a lackadaisical and often skeptical public to support AGW mitigating behaviors and policies.

The difficulty of this marketing assignment has also led to the utilization of ethically questionable tactics that hype the severity, immediacy and certainty of AGW threats (O’Neil and Nicholson-Cole, 2009; Rogers, 1975; Rosenberg et al., 2010).

For example, the past 25 years have witnessed a large number of greatly exaggerated predictions regarding the speed and scope of temperature increases and AGW dangers from a variety of AGW “endorsers,” which have fortunately proven to be false alarms (Bastasch, 2015; Grundmann, 2011; Michaels, 2008; Newman, 2014).  Another ethically questionable example is provided by the Climategate scandal involving members of the climate science community and their attempts to increase public certainty regarding the methods and predictions of “mainstream” climate models by blocking the publication of research not supportive of the AGW paradigm (Curry, 2014; Grundmann, 2011).

 

This author cites the Earth's solar magnetic field as instrumental in influencing global temperatures far more than CO2.

 

Fleming, 2018  The results of this review point to the extreme value of  CO2 to all life forms, but no role of  CO2 in any significant change of the Earth’s climate. … Many believe and/or support the notion that the Earth’s atmosphere is a “greenhouse” with CO2 as the primary “greenhouse” gas warming Earth.

That this concept seems acceptable is understandable—the modern heating of the Earth’s atmosphere began at the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850. The industrial revolution took hold about the same time. It would be natural to believe that these two events could be the reason for the rise in temperature. There is now a much clearer picture of an alternative reason for why the Earth’s surface temperature has risen since 1850. … There is no correlation of CO2 with temperature in any historical data set that was reviewed. The climate-change cooling over the 1940–1975 time period of the Modern Warming period was shown to be influenced by a combination of solar factors. The cause of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age climate changes was the solar magnetic field and cosmic ray connection. When the solar magnetic field is strong, it acts as a barrier to cosmic rays entering the Earth’s atmosphere, clouds decrease and the Earth warms. Conversely when the solar magnetic field is weak, there is no barrier to cosmic rays—they greatly increase large areas of low-level clouds, increasing the Earth’s albedo and the planet cools. The factors that affect these climate changes were reviewed in “Solar magnetic field/cosmic ray factors affecting climate change” section. The calculations of “H2O and CO2 in the radiation package” section revealed that there is no net impact of CO2 on the net heating of the atmosphere. The received heat is simply redistributed within the atmospheric column. This result is consistent and explains the lack of CO2 correlations with observations in the past. The current Modern Warming will continue until the solar magnetic field decreases in strength. If one adds the 350-year cycle from the McCracken result to the center of the Maunder Minimum which was centered in 1680, one would have a Grand Minimum centered in the year 2030.

 

Another postulates that the ACO plays a big role in climate warming/cooling cycles.

 

Davis et al., 2018     [T]he contemporary global warming increase of ~0.8 °C recorded since 1850 has been attributed widely to anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere. Recent research has shown, however, that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has been decoupled from global temperature for the last 425 million years [Davis, 2017] owing to well-established diminishing returns in marginal radiative forcing (ΔRF) as atmospheric CO2 concentration increases. Marginal forcing of temperature from increasing CO2 emissions declined by half from 1850 to 1980, and by nearly two-thirds from 1850 to 1999 [Davis, 2017]. Changes in atmospheric CO2 therefore affect global temperature weakly at most.

The anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis has been embraced partly because “…there is no convincing alternative explanation…” [USGCRP, 2017] (p. 12). …  The ACO [Antarctic Centennial Oscillation] provides a possible [natural] alternative explanation in the form of a natural climate cycle that arises in Antarctica, propagates northward to influence global temperature, and peaks on a predictable centennial timetable. … The period and amplitude of ACOs oscillate in phase with glacial cycles and related surface insolation associated with planetary orbital forces. We conclude that the ACO: encompasses at least the EAP; is the proximate source of D-O oscillations in the Northern Hemisphere; therefore affects global temperature; propagates with increased velocity as temperature increases; doubled in intensity over geologic time; is modulated by global temperature variations associated with planetary orbital cycles; and is the probable paleoclimate precursor of the contemporary Antarctic Oscillation (AAO). Properties of the ACO/AAO are capable of explaining the current global warming signal.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just think there is also a possibility we tip into a monsoonal regime and shift the sub-tropics to the poles. This would only happen after passing an unreal high amount of CO2(850+ ppm) and after a long period of drought worldwide. I often wonder if aerosol emissions and volcanoes do more harm than good. There was even a brief shutdown in the AMOC in the late 1960s.

If you rush headlong into Greenhouse Earth you stand a good chance of reducing the populations by 80% and greening parts of the sub-tropics (win-win). That's the only reason why you would ever be a climate action denier but it's still disingenuous. Humidity values must rise. Geoengineering could cause more drought.

As for Atlantic tropical activity. That's currently being trumped by forcings in the South Pacific. Last year's hurricane season was the costliest on record because of increased development and record flooding from Harvey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Vice-Regent said:

I just think there is also a possibility we tip into a monsoonal regime and shift the sub-tropics to the poles. This would only happen after passing an unreal high amount of CO2(850+ ppm) and after a long period of drought worldwide. I often wonder if aerosol emissions and volcanoes do more harm than good. There was even a brief shutdown in the AMOC in the late 1960s.

If you rush headlong into Greenhouse Earth you stand a good chance of reducing the populations by 80% and greening parts of the sub-tropics (win-win). That's the only reason why you would ever be a climate action denier but it's still disingenuous. Humidity values must rise. Geoengineering could cause more drought.

As for Atlantic tropical activity. That's currently being trumped by forcings in the South Pacific. Last year's hurricane season was the costliest on record because of increased development and record flooding from Harvey.

Where did I say in my post that we shouldn’t be careful with how we take care of the earths resources and our waste? Hmmm, nowhere. My response was geared toward the fact that articles like the one you linked are designed to promote fear rather than sound reasoning and analysis of the situation. 

The trend for hurricane activity in the Atlantic is down. Sure last year was costly from Harvey and other hurricanes but they are within climatological norms. With the growth and expansion of cities there will be higher costs to future hurricanes, floods, etc not because the climate is making things more severe but because there are more resources affected by the same floods, hurricanes, severe storms, etc. 

Furthermore, there are plenty of articles, scientists, publications, and other research suggesting AGW has played a minor or insignificant role in the warming we’ve seen and attributes the bulk of it to natural cycles, solar cycles, etc. The reason you don’t hear as much from these sources is the news media chooses to harp on the ones that predict doom and gloom AND also because those who are skeptical of AGW are specifically targeted and intentionally have their data suppressed. There is ample research and info out there on this process, look for yourself and see.

Frankly, it’s embarrassing that we live in a day where “science” is portrayed as “agree with the consensus or else we will silence/hide your alternative views.” Much scientific advancement has come from people in the minority who end up arriving at a correct conclusion missed by the majority. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, snowlover91 said:

Where did I say in my post that we shouldn’t be careful with how we take care of the earths resources and our waste? Hmmm, nowhere. My response was geared toward the fact that articles like the one you linked are designed to promote fear rather than sound reasoning and analysis of the situation. 

The trend for hurricane activity in the Atlantic is down. Sure last year was costly from Harvey and other hurricanes but they are within climatological norms. With the growth and expansion of cities there will be higher costs to future hurricanes, floods, etc not because the climate is making things more severe but because there are more resources affected by the same floods, hurricanes, severe storms, etc. 

Furthermore, there are plenty of articles, scientists, publications, and other research suggesting AGW has played a minor or insignificant role in the warming we’ve seen and attributes the bulk of it to natural cycles, solar cycles, etc. The reason you don’t hear as much from these sources is the news media chooses to harp on the ones that predict doom and gloom AND also because those who are skeptical of AGW are specifically targeted and intentionally have their data suppressed. There is ample research and info out there on this process, look for yourself and see.

Frankly, it’s embarrassing that we live in a day where “science” is portrayed as “agree with the consensus or else we will silence/hide your alternative views.” Much scientific advancement has come from people in the minority who end up arriving at a correct conclusion missed by the majority. 

Well said.... I don't believe the science is settled. Oh, I understand the CO2 science very well, I just don't believe that it is the only game in town. To exclude other forcing is not smart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The scientific consensus doesn't claim that CO2 is the only game in town nor does it knowingly exclude any forcing mechanism. It just claims that of all radiative forcing mechanisms (both natural and anthroprogenic) CO2 happens to be a significant contributor. And in an attempt to steer the conservation back toward the topic of the thread the paper is actually focused more on what happens if the global mean surface temperature rises by 2C rather than the exact pathway of how it got there in the first place. Would a hypothetical 2C rise in the global mean surface temperature activate hothouse tipping points or not? Is there an abundance of evidence to support that hypothesis or not? The authors believe there might be. That's the focus of the paper.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cold Rain said:

Cool

Such a pleasant sensation. Forever reminded of this beautiful feeling with a aesthetically pleasing scar. Things are getting serious boys. I think it's time to hit the shovels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, bdgwx said:

The scientific consensus doesn't claim that CO2 is the only game in town nor does it knowingly exclude any forcing mechanism. It just claims that of all radiative forcing mechanisms (both natural and anthroprogenic) CO2 happens to be a significant contributor. And in an attempt to steer the conservation back toward the topic of the thread the paper is actually focused more on what happens if the global mean surface temperature rises by 2C rather than the exact pathway of how it got there in the first place. Would a hypothetical 2C rise in the global mean surface temperature activate hothouse tipping points or not? Is there an abundance of evidence to support that hypothesis or not? The authors believe there might be. That's the focus of the paper.

I’m well aware what the original paper was on but you missed the point. The article excerpts in the original post are written from a fear mongering/alarmist perspective. This does more harm than good and is why the public has continued to lose trust in the AGW and alarmists out there. 

Furthermore there is a good deal of debate as to the significance of CO2 on the amount of warming influence. Some see it as a very minor contributor with natural cycles being the primary cause while others see it as primarily responsible for the warming. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Some of y'all could be holding a cherry red iron spit and you'd deny it's hot

Sorry but in the pursuit of science and knowledge, you should know better than anyone that science is rarely ever settled especially in dynamic systems like the earth. A consensus can be consistently wrong with their conclusions and there are plenty of alternative ideas out there worth further exploring, discussing and looking into as we seek to better understand the natural cycles as well as any impacts man may have through increased C02. We should certainly endeavor to take care of our planet, the resources, etc but also realize we have much to learn and study when it comes to understanding the complexities of the planet we live on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vice-Regent said:

Such a pleasant sensation. Forever reminded of this beautiful feeling with a aesthetically pleasing scar. Things are getting serious boys. I think it's time to hit the shovels.

What serious changes have impacted humans lately outside of the normal natural disasters that always occur? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/13/2018 at 12:45 PM, snowlover91 said:

There is data out there that indicates increased CO2 levels have led to increased crop yields and plant life rather than drought/famine, see below.

 

Since the polar bears are supposed to go extinct according to the climate fear mongers out there, let's look at some research data recently done on that.

 

Tropical activity in the Atlantic has shown a decrease in recent years rather than the gloom and doom predictions of more hurricanes.

 

Then there is the infamous "climategate" scandal where it was revealed that scientists writing views opposing or questioning man-made global warming (in favor of natural cycles) were intentionally silenced/not published which is especially applicable to the articles cited in your original post.


You provided 4 points that are not discussed in the article. If you're going to rebut an article, try sticking to actual claims made in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/15/2018 at 3:18 PM, aperson said:


You provided 4 points that are not discussed in the article. If you're going to rebut an article, try sticking to actual claims made in it.

Points 1 and 2 are implied, the article mentions ecosystems being destroyed and other disastrous results. Those who are AGW alarmists commonly use arguments like drought, crop failure, polar bears disappearing, etc and I provided some points addressing that line of reasoning. Point 3 likewise follows with some of the extreme “weather events” that alarmists say will happen like increasing hurricanes, severe weather, etc. 

Point 4 is also applicable because Michael Mann is mentioned (and the opinion article was based on his research). He has rightly been criticized for his extreme methods, hype, and manipulation of data (see the hockey stick graph) among many other issues he’s had. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, snowlover91 said:

Points 1 and 2 are implied, the article mentions ecosystems being destroyed and other disastrous results. Those who are AGW alarmists commonly use arguments like drought, crop failure, polar bears disappearing, etc and I provided some points addressing that line of reasoning. Point 3 likewise follows with some of the extreme “weather events” that alarmists say will happen like increasing hurricanes, severe weather, etc. 

Point 4 is also applicable because Michael Mann is mentioned (and the opinion article was based on his research). He has rightly been criticized for his extreme methods, hype, and manipulation of data (see the hockey stick graph) among many other issues he’s had. 

 

You are repeating denier talking points in this thread not science. The role of CO2 in the current warming is well established, no natural "cycle" fits the pattern of warming.  You are right some of the media coverage of this paper is over the top. To me the paper's most important point, is that nature is not going to bail us out. As we warm, most of the feedbacks are going to push us towards warmer conditions. So its up to us to address this problem. Sticking your head in the sand only makes a hothouse more likely. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CO2 does, in fact, get its vibrational modes activated by outgoing longwave photons. 150 years of laboratory experiments, infrared spectroscopy, and quantum electrodynamic theory confirm this. Furthermore, the warming of the troposphere while the stratosphere cools is the smoking gun signal for IR radiation capture and the greenhouse gas effect. There is no other process that can explain this vertical temperature profile observation aside from having more multiatomic molecules (like H20, CH4, CO2, etc) entering the atmosphere and increasing the cross section area of this IR radiation capture. And the predicted magnitude of this persistent radiative forcing is a reasonable match to what is observed. I'm not saying there aren't skeptical lines of evidence out there. They do indeed exist. But, when weighed against the abundance of supporting lines of evidence these skeptical lines of evidence are just a flash in the pan.

The existence of an alarmist opinion piece in no way refutes any of this. And besides, is the opinion piece "alarmist" because it sounds scary or because it's wrong? I agree that it sounds scary and is presented with a hint of a blustering tone. It's also based on just one academic publication with expert commentary provided by someone with a history of bravado. That's the media for you. But, that by itself doesn't make the original research wrong. What would make it wrong is an abundance of evidence that says it's wrong using arguments based on physical law instead of arguments that appeal to emotional sensibilities. But either way it certainly doesn't invalidate the fact that GHGs are warming the planet. So regardless of whether hothouse tipping points really are activated at 2C, which I happen to be skeptical of myself, all of that CO2 we're pumping into the atmosphere will continue to provide a persistent positive radiative forcing that will encourage future warming.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, WarmNose said:

What is the purpose of casting doubt on this topic? I don't see anyone as interested in casting doubt on the absurd health care system in this country or the quality of life in the modern world which is supposedly the epitome of progress.

That is because fixing global warming fixes all of the above. This topic is novel in it's scope and persistence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Vice-Regent said:

What is the purpose of casting doubt on this topic? I don't see anyone as interested in casting doubt on the absurd health care system in this country or the quality of life in the modern world which is supposedly the epitome of progress.

That is because fixing global warming fixes all of the above. This topic is novel in it's scope and persistence.

I see myself a free thinker. I doubt where doubt is needed. I see AGW as a collective effort by one politacal spectram to move money into the hands of the have nots. Call me what you will. I agreee with many other doubters. Humans effect earth’s pollution and YES we can do better, but to think Earth won’t correct these things on its own seems ludicrous to me. Don’t get me wrong. I have nothing but respect for you or your point of view. You guys keep me on my toes, and I thank you for that. My opinion is not settled 

edit: I agree with you on the health care issue. Capitalism is the driver, but capitalism is the best thing out there. I wouldn’t trade it for anything. Hope keeps people working. Without it, we would have chaos. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, bdgwx said:

CO2 does, in fact, get its vibrational modes activated by outgoing longwave photons. 150 years of laboratory experiments, infrared spectroscopy, and quantum electrodynamic theory confirm this. Furthermore, the warming of the troposphere while the stratosphere cools is the smoking gun signal for IR radiation capture and the greenhouse gas effect. There is no other process that can explain this vertical temperature profile observation aside from having more multiatomic molecules (like H20, CH4, CO2, etc) entering the atmosphere and increasing the cross section area of this IR radiation capture. And the predicted magnitude of this persistent radiative forcing is a reasonable match to what is observed. I'm not saying there aren't skeptical lines of evidence out there. They do indeed exist. But, when weighed against the abundance of supporting lines of evidence these skeptical lines of evidence are just a flash in the pan.

The existence of an alarmist opinion piece in no way refutes any of this. And besides, is the opinion piece "alarmist" because it sounds scary or because it's wrong? I agree that it sounds scary and is presented with a hint of a blustering tone. It's also based on just one academic publication with expert commentary provided by someone with a history of bravado. That's the media for you. But, that by itself doesn't make the original research wrong. What would make it wrong is an abundance of evidence that says it's wrong using arguments based on physical law instead of arguments that appeal to emotional sensibilities. But either way it certainly doesn't invalidate the fact that GHGs are warming the planet. So regardless of whether hothouse tipping points really are activated at 2C, which I happen to be skeptical of myself, all of that CO2 we're pumping into the atmosphere will continue to provide a persistent positive radiative forcing that will encourage future warming.

Unfortunately ... one can not penetrate a certain ilk of mindset with that logic, like the above bold' font.  At best, they'll stare vaguely, ...jaw ever so slightly agape, blink twice... then resume right on along their previous course of auto- contrarian agenda and/or outright knee-jerk reactionary mantra.  

Why they are like that? Who knows - but, relying on the fact that nothing is entirely 100% certain in the Universe is an evasive tactic; one that is used to dodge/avoid a circumstance or truth that either is too unsettling to them, or...  - and probably is a mix of both here - they are preprogrammed defiant types to much of anything that suggests change.

C02 put in the air by human activity is measured, quantifiable, and mathematically connected to warming...

I'd actually give more confidence over to the 10-year to accept that reality, because they are not adulterated by faux belief systems and/or disillusioned by horsesh!t in general ... yet do by then possess rudimentary logical capabilities. Yet these adults, those in power mind us...  so obstinately attempt refutation of that causal relationship, things that make you go, hmm.

All of Humanity is staged upon the railroad track of history while the iron of the rails is beginning to whir beneath their feet; instead of appropriately acknowledging and reacting to the vibration of the metal, they are arguing about the color shoes they are wearing to the engagement.  

Just for muse:  I am not religious... I merely know religions exist - that's about the extent of my religiosity overall.  I have vague impressions at best of what each religion's central tenets offer, just by mere proximity to having lived on this world for ...so many decades, and suffering exposure. Therein, my tenuous exposure to the Catholic bible contents is that many motivating powers of its scripture are so often attempted/conveyed via metaphoric constructs; one such one that leaps to mind is the parable of Noah and his Ark -

Not intending to offend ... again, this is admittedly an unsophisticated understanding ... but god or some angel of some kind, spoke to Noah and told him of the impending doom (flood)? From what I gather ... he was given some instructions on how to save enough ... life, to repopulate the Earth whence the torrents recede.  Along the way ... regardless of whether the "facts" of "why" he engaged in building the Ark were true or not, he must endure and eschew the constant ridicule by the masses.

Sound familiar?

Forgetting for a moment, that the power of his resolve may or may not have been footed in special insights bestowed in him by the lord ... blah blah-blah blah blah ... the moral of his journey gets lost by the spectacle of the fable: It is about sticking with one's convictions no matter how beset they may be by other's attempting to distract them from their destiny.

So of course... the flood came... and all those that were laughing got to eat poetic justice - the scatological remains of his righteous resolve.  Ha!  

I don't bring it up because I believe in a god or deity, or whatever as being some ultimate puppeteer of reality... I bring it up because I find the scripture to be remarkably apropos (fascinatingly enough) for the unsettling present times: we live in a mass population that is in a knee-jerk ridiculous, regardless of what form that ridicule takes. Be it attempts at constructive criticisms of the impending "flood," which are logically false but blindly embraced, or just that which you find amid the troglodytic vitriol of some demagogue's rally ... the present day hang-up over this issue is eerily similar - if nothing else...the ancients had a wisdom. I'll give them that.

The funny thing is ... is the hypocrisy of it all, as I sit here ... tongue-in-cheek admonitioning those that don't believe human activity is culpable in Global Warming ... I'm pounding away on the keyboard that cannot exist without human activity that is culpable in Global Warming. Much more, the electricity that sends the keystrokes out upon an infrastructure that frankly, if it did not exist in whole, we wouldn't be in this debate. It conflict of interest is similar to the whole Vegan argument:  we'll see how far their convictions carry them when true starvation kicks in - and I don't mean the same starvation you may find in a 'hunger-strike.'  There's something subtly dubious about that hunger striker, for as they emaciate ...they must draw upon some semblance of strength from the perpetual abstraction along the way ... that a turkey f'um sandwich is still just an option.  I'm talking about no options, real,... pithy, mid and lower brain primal starvation that can only happen when one is out of options, and their stomach has been empty for a long time... Said Vegan'll imbibe road-kill when flight-or-flight mortality is on the line. 

If we wanna talk metaphors, the ability to rant from the elevated position of these moral high roads... they are roads built upon the scaffold of everything they rebuke.  It's interesting... I guess maybe you got to fight some evil with evil?  

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/17/2018 at 8:19 AM, chubbs said:

You are repeating denier talking points in this thread not science. The role of CO2 in the current warming is well established, no natural "cycle" fits the pattern of warming.  You are right some of the media coverage of this paper is over the top. To me the paper's most important point, is that nature is not going to bail us out. As we warm, most of the feedbacks are going to push us towards warmer conditions. So its up to us to address this problem. Sticking your head in the sand only makes a hothouse more likely. 

No one who is skeptical of AGW denies the role of CO2 in the warming. Those who are skeptical attribute CO2 as enhancing a natural cyclical warming cycle but look at other factors which may explain the warming.

Below is some food for thought to consider from various papers and research. This is just a tiny sampling of those who are offering alternative explanations for various changes we are seeing globally.

Quote

Temperature data 1900–2010 from meteorological stations across the world have been analyzed and it has been found that all land areas generally have two different valid temperature trends. Coastal stations and hill stations facing ocean winds are normally more warm-trended than the valley stations that are sheltered from dominant oceans winds.

Thus, we found that in any area with variation in the topography, we can divide the stations into the more warm trended ocean air-affected stations, and the more cold-trended ocean air-sheltered stations. We find that the distinction between ocean air-affected and ocean air-sheltered stations can be used to identify the influence of the oceans on land surface. We can then use this knowledge as a tool to better study climate variability on the land surface without the moderating effects of the ocean.

We find a lack of warming in the ocean air sheltered temperature data – with less impact of ocean temperature trends – after 1950. The lack of warming in the ocean air sheltered temperature trends after 1950 should be considered when evaluating the climatic effects of changes in the Earth’s atmospheric trace amounts of greenhouse gasses as well as variations in solar conditions.

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0958305X18756670?journalCode=eaea

Instrumental-Temperatures-World-10-Regio

 

The urban heat island effect is a factor to consider as urbanization and expansion of cities has rapidly increased the past 50-60 years.

 

Parker and Ollier, 2017

“We should also consider the role of the Bureau of Meteorology. The climate trend maps compiled by Bureau of Meteorology in their climate change section are completely unreliable, as the alleged increasing temperature is obtained by lowering temperatures of the past by “adjustments“.

“The global reconstructions as GISS (Hansen et al. 2010, GISTEMP Team 2017) are artificially biased upwards to reproduce the carbon dioxide emission trend, but the strong natural oscillation signal prevails. The very likely overrated warming rate since 1880 is 0.00654°C/year or 0.654°C/century. This rate increases to 0.00851°C/year or 0.851°C/century by considering the data only since 1910. The warming rate cleared of the oscillations is about constant since the 1940s.”

“There are stations covering different time windows having very close patterns of temperatures. In this circle of 3,141,593 km2 (roughly 50% of Australia) that is mostly underdeveloped, none of the stations […] actually has a warming trend. … It is therefore only an artifact by BOM to produce the warming. Homogenization is supposed to be used to account for upwards biases such as Urban Heat Island, not to introduce upwards biases. … The longest of the Australian temperature records that were considered the most reliable by Bureau of Meteorology on February 2009 (BOM 2009) are still available as raw temperatures in the climate data online section and consistently show no warming and no increased extreme events within the limit of accuracy of measurements.

 

 

Oyler et al., 2015    

Artificial Amplification of Warming Trends …Western United States     “Observations from the main mountain climate station network in the western United States (US) suggest that higher elevations are warming faster than lower elevations. This has led to the assumption that elevation-dependent warming is prevalent throughout the region with impacts to water resources and ecosystem services. Here, we critically evaluate this network’s temperature observations and show that extreme warming observed at higher elevations is the result of systematic artifacts and not climatic conditions. With artifacts removed, the network’s 1991–2012 minimum temperature trend decreases from +1.16 °C decade−1 to +0.106 °C decade−1 and is statistically indistinguishable from lower elevation trends. Moreover, longer-term widely used gridded climate products propagate the spurious temperature trend, thereby amplifying 1981–2012 western US elevation-dependent warming by +217 to +562%. In the context of a warming climate, this artificial amplification of mountain climate trends has likely compromised our ability to accurately attribute climate change impacts across the mountainous western US.”

 

 

McKitrick and Michaels, 2007   

“[E]xtraneous (nonclimatic) signals contaminate gridded climate data. The patterns of contamination are detectable in both rich and poor countries and are relatively stronger in countries where real income is growing. We apply a battery of model specification tests to rule out spurious correlations and endogeneity bias. We conclude that the data contamination likely leads to an overstatement of actual trends over land. Using the regression model to filter the extraneous, nonclimatic effects reduces the estimated 1980–2002 global average temperature trend over land by about half.”[/quote)

 

Then of course there is research out there questioning if the rise of CO2 is in fact man-made or from natural sources. See below.

Ahlbeck, 2009
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1260/095830509789876772
The increase rate of atmospheric carbon dioxide for the period from 1980 to 2007 can be statistically explained as being a function solely of the global mean temperature. Throughout the period, the temperature differences seem to have caused differences around a base trend of 1.5 ppmv/year. The atmospheric CO2 increase rate was higher when the globe was warmer, and the increase rate was lower when the globe was cooler. This can be explained by wind patterns, biological processes, or most likely by, the fact that a warmer ocean can hold less carbon dioxide. This finding indicates that knowledge of the rate of anthropogenic emission is not needed for estimation of the increase rate of atmospheric carbon dioxide.”

Quirk, 2009
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1260/095830509787689123
“The results suggest that El Nino and the Southern Oscillation events produce major changes in the carbon isotope ratio in the atmosphere. This does not favour the continuous increase of CO2 from the use of fossil fuels as the source of isotope ratio changes. The constancy of seasonal variations in CO2 and the lack of time delays between the hemispheres suggest that fossil fuel derived CO2 is almost totally absorbed locally in the year it is emitted. This implies that natural variability of the climate is the prime cause of increasing CO2, not the emissions of CO2 from the use of fossil fuels.”

 

Antarctic and the surrounding ocean is cooling according to these studies.

 

Oliva et al., 2017

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969716327152

“However, a recent analysis (Turner et al., 2016) has shown that the regionally stacked temperature record for the last three decades has shifted from a warming trend of 0.32 °C/decade during 1979–1997 to a cooling trend of −0.47 °C/decade during 1999–2014. … This recent cooling has already impacted the cryosphere in the northern AP [Antarctic Peninsula], including slow-down of glacier recession, a shift to surface mass gains of the peripheral glacier and a thinning of the active layer of permafrost in northern AP islands.”

Here are Antarctic SST anomaly trends from 1979-2013, barely any warming and substantial cooling.

Southern-Ocean-Cooling-1979-to-2013-Puri

From that same study, it's clear that climate models have completely missed this change. How can we trust them when they are so wrong and missing the real-time changes and observations?

 

Purich et al., 2018

“Observed Southern Ocean changes over recent decades include a surface freshening (Durack and Wijffels 2010; Durack et al. 2012; de Lavergne et al. 2014), surface cooling (Fan et al. 2014; Marshall et al. 2014; Armour et al. 2016; Purich et al. 2016a) and circumpolar increase in Antarctic sea ice (Cavalieri and Parkinson 2008; Comiso and Nishio 2008; Parkinson and Cavalieri 2012).  … [A]s high-latitude surface freshening is associated with surface cooling and a sea ice increase, this may be another factor contributing to the CMIP5 models excessive Southern Ocean surface warming contrasting the observed surface cooling (Marshall et al. 2014; Purich et al. 2016a), and sea ice decline contrasting the observed increases (Mahlstein et al. 2013; Polvani and Smith 2013; Swart and Fyfe 2013; Turner et al. 2013; Zunz et al. 2013; Gagne et al. 2015) over recent decades. … Our results suggest that recent multi-decadal trends in large-scale surface salinity over the Southern Ocean have played a role in the observed surface cooling seen in this region. … The majority of CMIP5 models do not simulate a surface cooling and increase in sea ice (Fig. 8b), as seen in observations.”

Looking at the Arctic, people love to show the 1979-present graph from PIOMAS that shows a clear downward trend in ice extent.

BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1.png

Or graphs like this

Figure3.png

What they like to ignore is the longer term cyclic nature of the Arctic. Reconstructions over say 100 years indicate the levels we see now are not unheard of; they were seen in the 1920-1940 period before a gradual recovery. Reconstructions and other data indicate the Arctic and Antarctic have natural cycles lasting several decades (and even longer) and is within normal natural variability.

Arctic-Sea-Ice-Extent-1900-2013-Alekseev

It's no coincidence that recent data indicates that not only is Greenland seeing increased SMB gain in recent years, it is also beginning to see a cooling trend.

 

Westergaard-Nielsen et al., 2018

“Here we quantify trends in satellite-derived land surface temperatures and modeled air temperatures, validated against observations, across the entire ice-free Greenland. … Warming trends observed from 1986–2016 across the ice-free Greenland is mainly related to warming in the 1990’s. The most recent and detailed trends based on MODIS (2001–2015) shows contrasting trends across Greenland, and if any general trend it is mostly a cooling. The MODIS dataset provides a unique detailed picture of spatio temporally distributed changes during the last 15 years. … Figure 3 shows that on an annual basis, less than 36% of the ice-free Greenland has experienced a significant trend and, if any, a cooling is observed during the last 15 years (<0.15 °C change per year).”

41598_2018_19992_Fig3_HTML.jpg
 
Solar influence has a big role
Shi et al., 2018 The results show that during periods of strong solar activity, the solar shortwave heating anomaly from the climatology in the tropical upper stratosphere triggers a local warm anomaly and strong westerly winds in mid-latitudes, which strengthens the upward propagation of planetary wave 1 but prevents that of wave 2. … The Sun is the most important source of energy in the Earth’s climate system and variations in the intensity of solar radiation influence both the weather and climate (Chen et al., 2015; Rind, 2002, 2008; Shang et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2015; Zhao et al., 2012). Gray et al. (2010) showed that there are two main mechanisms, bottom-up mechanism and top-down mechanism, by which solar activity affects the Earth’s climate. The top-down mechanism is connected to solar ultraviolet radiation. Solar ultraviolet radiation is mainly absorbed by ozone in the tropical stratosphere, which changes the meridional temperature gradient and wind field in the atmosphere. This further affects the propagation of stratospheric planetary waves in the winter hemisphere (Balachandran and Rind, 1995). Therefore, the solar radiation change can affect the interaction between the stratospheric circulation and the planetary waves (Haigh, 1996, 1999; Kodera and Kuroda, 2002; Shindell et al., 1999, 2006).
 
Lubin et al., 2018 Over the past decade there has been increasing realization and concern that the steady and high solar luminosity of the past century may transition to greater variability later this century (Abreu et al. 2008; Feulner & Rahmstorf 2010; Lockwood 2010). Specifically, the Sun may descend into a period of low magnetic activity analogous to the historical Maunder minimum (MM; circa 1640–1715; Eddy 1976). A resulting decrease in total solar irradiance (TSI) impacting the terrestrial lower atmosphere energy budget is linked to changes in high-latitude circulation patterns that strongly influence the climate of Europe and the Atlantic sector of the Arctic and subArctic (Song et al. 2010; Meehl et al. 2013), and may also influence Antarctic climate (Orsi et al. 2012). Studies have also shown the importance of stratospheric response to a grand minimum (e.g., Gray et al. 2010; Bolduc et al. 2015; Maycock et al. 2015). Over a solar cycle and certainly in response to a future grand minimum, irradiance variability at middle ultraviolet (UV) wavelengths that drive oxygen photolysis and ozone chemistry is much larger that that of the TSI. Resulting changes to stratospheric ozone abundance alter the stratosphere–troposphere temperature gradient and feed back to tropospheric planetary wave refraction, further altering climatically relevant circulation patterns (Maycock et al. 2015). With this realization that both direct radiative and indirect stratospheric influences affect terrestrial climate under a solar grand minimum, it is important to understand how UV irradiance would respond to such a large and prolonged change in solar magnetic activity.
 
Fleming, 2018 The results of this review point to the extreme value of CO2 to all life forms, but no role of CO2 in any significant change of the Earth’s climate. … Many believe and/or support the notion that the Earth’s atmosphere is a “greenhouse” with CO2 as the primary “greenhouse” gas warming Earth. That this concept seems acceptable is understandable—the modern heating of the Earth’s atmosphere began at the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850. The industrial revolution took hold about the same time. It would be natural to believe that these two events could be the reason for the rise in temperature. There is now a much clearer picture of an alternative reason for why the Earth’s surface temperature has risen since 1850. … There is no correlation of CO2 with temperature in any historical data set that was reviewed. The climate-change cooling over the 1940–1975 time period of the Modern Warming period was shown to be influenced by a combination of solar factors. The cause of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age climate changes was the solar magnetic field and cosmic ray connection. When the solar magnetic field is strong, it acts as a barrier to cosmic rays entering the Earth’s atmosphere, clouds decrease and the Earth warms. Conversely when the solar magnetic field is weak, there is no barrier to cosmic rays—they greatly increase large areas of low-level clouds, increasing the Earth’s albedo and the planet cools. The factors that affect these climate changes were reviewed in “Solar magnetic field/cosmic ray factors affecting climate change” section. The calculations of “H2O and CO2 in the radiation package” section revealed that there is no net impact of CO2 on the net heating of the atmosphere. The received heat is simply redistributed within the atmospheric column. This result is consistent and explains the lack of CO2 correlations with observations in the past. The current Modern Warming will continue until the solar magnetic field decreases in strength. If one adds the 350-year cycle from the McCracken result to the center of the Maunder Minimum which was centered in 1680, one would have a Grand Minimum centered in the year 2030.
 
Some postulate the role of the Antarctic (ACO/AAO) for explaining the warming.
Davis et al., 2018 [T]he contemporary global warming increase of ~0.8 °C recorded since 1850 has been attributed widely to anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere. Recent research has shown, however, that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has been decoupled from global temperature for the last 425 million years [Davis, 2017] owing to well-established diminishing returns in marginal radiative forcing (ΔRF) as atmospheric CO2 concentration increases. Marginal forcing of temperature from increasing CO2 emissions declined by half from 1850 to 1980, and by nearly two-thirds from 1850 to 1999 [Davis, 2017]. Changes in atmospheric CO2 therefore affect global temperature weakly at most. The anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis has been embraced partly because “…there is no convincing alternative explanation…” [USGCRP, 2017] (p. 12). The ACO [Antarctic Centennial Oscillation] provides a possible [natural] alternative explanation in the form of a natural climate cycle that arises in Antarctica, propagates northward to influence global temperature, and peaks on a predictable centennial timetable. … The period and amplitude of ACOs oscillate in phase with glacial cycles and related surface insolation associated with planetary orbital forces. We conclude that the ACO: encompasses at least the EAP; is the proximate source of D-O oscillations in the Northern Hemisphere; therefore affects global temperature; propagates with increased velocity as temperature increases; doubled in intensity over geologic time; is modulated by global temperature variations associated with planetary orbital cycles; and is the probable paleoclimate precursor of the contemporary Antarctic Oscillation (AAO). Properties of the ACO/AAO are capable of explaining the current global warming signal.
For the climate alarmists, polar bear population isn't going extinct, it's stable or increasing.
Laforest et al., 2018 A majority of participants indicated that the local polar bear population was stable or increasing. … [Participants] indicated that polar bear body condition is stable; they cited the fact that polar bears are capable of hunting seals in open water as a factor contributing to the stable body condition of the bears. … None of the participants explicitly linked the effects of a warming climate to specific impacts on polar bears. … Five participants indicated that polar bears are adept swimmers capable of hunting seals in open water. Residents of communities along Baffin Bay have also expressed this viewpoint (Dowsley and Wenzel, 2008), whereas Inuvialuit of the Western Arctic had variable perceptions of the ability of bears to catch seals in open water (Joint Secretariat, 2015). The view of polar bears as effective open-water hunters is not consistent with the Western scientific understanding that bears rely on the sea ice platform for catching prey (Stirling and McEwan, 1975; Smith, 1980). The implications of this disagreement are paramount, given that scientists suggest that the greatest threat to polar bears associated with a decrease in sea ice is a significant decrease in access to marine mammal prey (Stirling and Derocher, 1993; Derocher et al., 2004) … A recent aerial survey of the Southern Hudson Bay subpopulation concluded that the abundance of polar bears has remained steady since 1986 (943 bears; SE: 174) (Obbard et al., 2015). The survey included the entire coastal range and offshore island habitat of the Southern Hudson Bay subpopulation, except for the eastern James Bay coast. Taken together, the results of the aerial survey and the participant responses from Wemindji and Chisasibi indicate that the local population has remained stable. However, the unanimous responses from participants in Whapmagoostui/Kuujjuarapik suggest that there has been a localized increase in the number of bears near Whapmagoostui/Kuujjuarapik.
 
The coral reef bleaching off Australia? Based on a new study, this has been going on for 400+ years.
Remember when they said the Coral Reefs off Australia were bleaching at an alarming rate and this never happened prior to 1979? Well now research is showing that there are cyclical cycles of bleaching that have been occurring for 400+ years.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2018.00283/full
upload_2018-8-18_22-49-50-jpeg.5637
 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, snowlover91 said:

No one who is skeptical of AGW denies the role of CO2 in the warming. Those who are skeptical attribute CO2 as enhancing a natural cyclical warming cycle but look at other factors which may explain the warming.

Below is some food for thought to consider from various papers and research. This is just a tiny sampling of those who are offering alternative explanations for various changes we are seeing globally.

You are not offering a credible analysis just cherry-picking. As bdgwx points out above, the evidence for CO2 and other ghg being the predominant warming factor is overwhelming and getting stronger by the decade. Per the analysis below the natural contribution since 1850 is negligible vs the increase in forcing from CO2 and other ghg.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, snowlover91 said:

No one who is skeptical of AGW denies the role of CO2 in the warming. Those who are skeptical attribute CO2 as enhancing a natural cyclical warming cycle but look at other factors which may explain the warming.

Then it should be easy to find a natural process or set of natural processes that when summed together explain most of the warming since 1960. So which process(es) can explain the ~1.0C rise in the global mean surface temperature and the rise of 20*10^22 joules of oceanic heat content? What natural physical process explains the warming of the troposphere while the stratosphere cools? And where is all of that energy that is getting captured via greenhouse gas effect going if it's not going into heating the biosphere?

 

4 hours ago, snowlover91 said:

Thanks for the link. Unfortunately it's behind a paywall and I can only read the abstract. The first thing to keep in mind is that this is just one publication and it must be considered in the context of all others. Second, without actually reading the paper my hunch (again based only on the abstract) is that there's going to be an argument that the homogenization step used by conventional datasets like NASA GISS, NOAA GlobalTemp, and the like may be more susceptible to topographical elements than the maintainers of those datasets aren't considering. I want to make a few points here. First, we really need to get a rebuttal from the maintainers of these datasets before we blindingly toss out the hundreds of peer reviewed publications confirming the validity of these datasets based a single publication. Second, the paper seems to be focused on land-ocean boundaries which represents a small percentage of the entire surface area of Earth. Third, there are actually multiple different lines of evidence that corroborate the fact that the Earth has warmed significantly in the modern era. We have satellite based datasets (like RSS and UAH). We have reanalysis (like CFSR, ERA, MERRA, NCAR, JRA, and countless others). And, of course, we have checks on the conventional datasets from independent groups like Berkeley Earth which was originally founded and funded by skeptics specifically to question the consensus. These datasets are from multiple groups using wildly different techniques and subsets of available and they all come to the conclusion that the Earth is warming and the magnitude of the warming is remarkably similar regardless of which dataset you look at. That is a testament to the confidence in this conclusion. The probability that a single publication (which was just published and has yet to get expert commentary from a sufficient depth of the scientific community) would upend this consensus is next to nothing. In other words, don't hold your breath hoping that a big paradigm shift is in the making from this one publication because it's not going to happen. 

Anyway, thanks for the link. Often times you can find a free copy if you google hard enough. Luck isn't on my side this go around, but I'll poke around some more. I'm always open to reading any peer reviewed literature even if it does buck the consensus.

And in regard to the urban heat island effect keep in mind that this has been known about for a very long time. I can probably dig up some really old papers by James Hansen documenting how he dealt with the problem as far back as the 1980's. But all datasets which might have a disproportionate weighting toward urban stations has there own method for dealing with the issue. My point is that this is not a new problem and scientists have definitely embraced it and accounted for it using various different techniques. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×